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

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/

Maybe the end justifies the means, but why can't they just come to a conclusion based on "good" intel, and try and avoid including the crap just becuase it advances the cause?

Both sides do this all the time...exagerrate the facts to try and prove their point, when just being truthful (and admitting there might be two sides to an issue) would give enough evidence for their side...

" Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet."


So, THIS is what we've been reading here lately???
;)

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

Operative word being "some"

Tom Ridge (Secretary of Homeland Security) was on Charlie Rose last night . . .he was pretty clear that the warnings came from a composite of "chatter". I would reason that it was not just some bozos fax.

The article from your link there, tries to gloss over the operative word "some of the information cited . . ." to imply Ashcroft is basing his warning solely on some crack-pot. (strawman-101)

maybe that's 'crap' you (Dr-no) refer to when you say "avoid including the crap just becuase it advances the cause" (?)

Like Ashcroft, or not, you have to admit that a guy doesn't get to that position by being a loose cannon.

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

no, but he does get to his position by twisting the "facts" and using them for political advantage.

My point is, why cite the stuff that is crap? Why not just say "we've got some credible and some that we don't necessarily believe"? It would seem from various things i've read that some of the agencies put more weight on certain "chatter" based more on politcal agenda than veracity of the source.

Of course then the other side monday-morning quarterbacks. Both parties suck. I'd just like someone to be honest and admit that the world isn't black and white...although that wouldn't resonate with Joe Six-pack who wants their world-view nice a easy/clean like a John Wayne western...

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

Fair enough. . but my point is that article is CLEARLY (oops, didnt mean to yell) a twisted strawman piece designed to get people pissed-off at Ashcroft.. . clearly!

The sad thing is, the press has worked hard to polarize the population. .. .with hits like this. This article plays well with leftists looking to be fed more justification on their position of "those stupid, fuched-up republicans".

Can you tell me the article has any other purpose?
. . they're feeding "outrage" based on a really lame premise.

On the other hand, (putting on my tin foil hat), this might be a planned failing for John, thus giving the administation just cause to ask for his resignation.

So whats up with the new PM of Iraq? Ex CIA and MI6 flunky? Hmmmm...

Ed

Ashcroft scares the bejeezus out of me. He reminds me of the Nazi propagandists, complete with a Christian rationale for everything he says.

That being said, this whole election year is a sad situation for this nation. Kerry is trying to put Bush in the dumper for the fiasco in Iraq, while conveniently forgetting that he abdicated his constitutional responsibilities as a senator by voting to give Bush the go-ahead to proceed without a declaration of war. Bush, meanwhile, has got these lunatics like Ashcroft, Rummy and Cheney running the show while he's falling off his bicycle on vacation in Texas.

I really don't know who to vote for this November. I'm disheartened reading a lot of the polarized vitriole even on this bbs from folks like Flintstone and Techweenie. It's easy to attack the other side when you don't have an answer.

The trouble is, I don't think Kerry or Bush has an answer. That's why we're in such a mess. They're too busy attacking each other, and sending their respective hatchet men to do the dirty work, to figure out how to get us out of this mess.

My two cents worth. If it's worth that.

johnjr
78 SC targa

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

well...it depends. The left will use it as fodder to try and oust Ashcroft, since they already believe it. The right will use it as an example of poor hard working Ashcroft being slapped from the bully pulpit that is the "leftist" media.

It *could* open the eyes of some people in the middle who to date have believed that our intelligence organizations are on top of things. I actually believe that a significant number of Americans think that people are working in their best interest, and that the FBI, CIA, etc are not politicized. I also think that some of the intelligence community actually believe that they are doing "the right thing", and just want to badly to be right a catch something that they are willing to chase red herrings until the whole joint smells.

Then there are the just plain evil and/or stupid that use the naivete and trust of the people to advance their own agenda. ON BOTH SIDES.

I think our government is flying blind now. The war in Iraq has left us without much info coming out of the Arab world. Any info the CIA/FBI gets now (paying for it) is suspect...the Arab world doesn't care what happens to the USA as we have pissed them off with all our blunders in Iraq.

I don't think their will be any warnings for an attack....


Geoff

the media has polarized the population? you can't be serious.

kevin

Okay, kev. . .I should have worded it;

the press has worked hard to further polarize the population

my bad :rolleyes:

sure you don't mean farther?

Or maybe father?

Or maybe fatherland?

Ahhh...so now we get to the heart of the issue. I knew the nazis were involved.

Nope. . . I mean 'further"

Or maybe furer

Or maybe Fuehrer

. . .either way; the nazis were involved.;)

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

No, apparently you get to that position by losing an election to a dead man. :rolleyes:

I for one don't need any news articles to get me riled up over AG Asscrack, I try not to ever think about the guy. Seriously. It just ruins my enjoyment of the day. :cool:

Just a question, counting waco, ruby ridge and the elian gonzalez thing, How much higher did Janet Reno rate?

Whether a president or an AG, you got to be pretty slimy to slither your way to the top.

I would have to bone up on my knowledge of the other two, but as for the Elian Gonzales case, I was behind her handling of it all the way. That turned into a kidnapping case, plain and simple. And the whole "mother risked her life for freedom" story was a steaming pile of horse*****. She risked her child's life to chase the guy she was f*cking over to Florida. I've read up extensively on that one, if anyone needs to be cleared up on it.

My only complaint is that the DOJ let those creepy-ass people hang on to the child that long, parading him around in front of cameras, etc. What a bunch of goons. The government let them keep custody of the child in a measure of good faith and to try to calm a political storm, (they did not have to do this, the Miami people had no legal right to custody), and they welched on every deal that they made.

It was sickening watching that little kid being used as a propaganda football by the right-wing Cuban creeps in Miami, and that family in particular had zero integrity. I cheered my ass off when the INS snatched him. The whole mess should have never happened, though, but for a failed policy w/ Cuba that needs to be changed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you see this differently, Arraine? ;) :cool:

It is funny how the left is trying to use this warning for propaganda. Is there was an attack and it was discovered that there was warnings...from anyone, including "largely discredited groups" that were not made public...there would be incredible outrage...ie another 9/11...Once again, the left tries to put the administration in the "damned if you do--damned if you don't position." I guess that is why the democratic flip-flop seems to come so naturally.

Don't forget what the "A" in "AG" stands for.

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?

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?

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. :rolleyes:

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

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"(?) :rolleyes:

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

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.

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?

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.

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...

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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. :cool:

"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.

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?

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...

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).

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. :(

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.:rolleyes: