Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Al-Queda documents 3-4 yrs. old
Author Message
Dogger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #1
 
Some of us have speculated on this site that the right plays politics with fear. Even though we have no solid proof of these allgations it just seems real strange that the right likes to keep us jumpy. Now we have yet another example:

<a href='http://www.drudgereport.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.drudgereport.com/</a>
08-02-2004 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Trooper Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 185
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
Dogger Wrote:Some of us have speculated on this site that the right plays politics with fear. Even though we have no solid proof of these allgations it just seems real strange that the right likes to keep us jumpy. Now we have yet another example:

<a href='http://www.drudgereport.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.drudgereport.com/</a>
........A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment."
But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.


HVT = High value Target

My source.........


<a href='http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904' target='_blank'>The New Republic</a>

I posted this in another thread, from a highly respected CONSERVATIVE publication. It didn't get any comment but it adds another piece of evidence to the truth.
08-03-2004 07:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #3
 
Trooper Wrote:
Dogger Wrote:Some of us have speculated on this site that the right plays politics with fear.&nbsp; Even though we have no solid proof of these allgations it just seems real strange that the right likes to keep us jumpy.&nbsp; Now we have yet another example:

<a href='http://www.drudgereport.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.drudgereport.com/</a>
........A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment."
But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.


HVT = High value Target

My source.........


<a href='http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904' target='_blank'>The New Republic</a>

I posted this in another thread, from a highly respected CONSERVATIVE publication. It didn't get any comment but it adds another piece of evidence to the truth.
Neither of you really followed this story, did you? Read the whole Washington Post story, and the full text of the stories that were published on Monday.

I love the "gotcha" politics the Dems try to play...THEY'RE the ones politicizing our national security, and you will pay for it in the long run.
08-03-2004 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dogger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #4
 
Bearcat,

If you have ever read any of my posts I always said that it is my HOPE that no one would play politics with our national security. I would hope that would sicken you also. The one time Ashcroft tried that ALL Americans should have been outraged.
08-03-2004 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
Dogger Wrote:Bearcat,

If you have ever read any of my posts I always said that it is my HOPE that no one would play politics with our national security. I would hope that would sicken you also. The one time Ashcroft tried that ALL Americans should have been outraged.
It certainly would. In this case, though, since the intelligence was just recently discovered (regardless of the date of the last entry) and given the upcoming events (election, olympics, RNC) I don't see how you CAN'T put the info out there. Plus, this stuff was extremely detailed blueprints, tracking of traffic and pedestrian cycles, etc. I just don't see you anyone can reasonably describe this as politically motivated.

If they didn't release it, and something happened during the Republican Convention, and it was revealed that there was intelligence available, can you imagine the backlash and outrage?
08-03-2004 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
safetyeagle Offline
POOTNANNY
*

Posts: 1,130
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 5
I Root For: USM
Location: VICKSBURG, MS
Post: #6
 
heard this on the radio, so it 3-4 yrs old and the info was released, big deal, if wasnt & something happened wolf jennings rather couric would be calling for bush's head, and so would all you libs. sorry guys, i may be breaking the aup, but ya'll really are morons
08-03-2004 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Socko Wiethe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,209
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
 
BearcatCarl Wrote:If they didn't release it, and something happened during the Republican Convention, and it was revealed that there was intelligence available, can you imagine the backlash and outrage?
You mean like the backlash and outrage that came when we learned the president received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack United States" a month before 9/11 took place?

I'm having trouble with a couple of points. One, Ridge and co. came on with the gravest of tones on Sunday to talk about this treasure trove of specific info they had unearthed. Intentional or not, for it to come out the next day that it was 3-4 years old undermines the credibility of what he is saying and also makes it look like they were just trolling for some big success to say that Homeland Security is really on top of things. I want to believe that I can believe him, but this "overlooked" point would make anyone wonder.

Second, is that really where we are in all this? Our intelligence is so far behind the game that the best we can do is trumpet the fact we are three years behind when it comes to terrorist plans? That's pretty damn scary, if its true.

Finally, you true believers are plenty willing to trash the media, but this story just points up one more example of how valuable the press really is in keeping us a free and truthful society. Checks and balances are just annoyances in the eyes of those currently in power, but where would we be without them?
08-03-2004 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
 
Socko Wiethe Wrote:
BearcatCarl Wrote:If they didn't release it, and something happened during the Republican Convention, and it was revealed that there was intelligence available, can you imagine the backlash and outrage?
You mean like the backlash and outrage that came when we learned the president received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack United States" a month before 9/11 took place?

I'm having trouble with a couple of points. One, Ridge and co. came on with the gravest of tones on Sunday to talk about this treasure trove of specific info they had unearthed. Intentional or not, for it to come out the next day that it was 3-4 years old undermines the credibility of what he is saying and also makes it look like they were just trolling for some big success to say that Homeland Security is really on top of things. I want to believe that I can believe him, but this "overlooked" point would make anyone wonder.

Second, is that really where we are in all this? Our intelligence is so far behind the game that the best we can do is trumpet the fact we are three years behind when it comes to terrorist plans? That's pretty damn scary, if its true.

Finally, you true believers are plenty willing to trash the media, but this story just points up one more example of how valuable the press really is in keeping us a free and truthful society. Checks and balances are just annoyances in the eyes of those currently in power, but where would we be without them?
In reference to the briefing document - the info inside was a lot less salient than the title would lead one to believe.

And unfortunately, that IS what we've come to. Our leaders feel compelled to release info in urgent tones because the repercussions for NOT doing so are severe...and the media would be more than willing to pile on.

Essential reporting I'm fine with...but this notion of a "gotcha" the media is playing with this is just not in line with the nation's interests. The info was updated in January 2004, and based on what we know about Al Qaeda's MO, they spend years on something and frequently update old intel before they strike.

There is no black helicopter, no smoking gun on this. The press would do us better service by looking into something important instead of pandering to the least common denominator.
08-03-2004 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Socko Wiethe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,209
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
 
BearcatCarl Wrote:
Socko Wiethe Wrote:
BearcatCarl Wrote:If they didn't release it, and something happened during the Republican Convention, and it was revealed that there was intelligence available, can you imagine the backlash and outrage?
You mean like the backlash and outrage that came when we learned the president received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack United States" a month before 9/11 took place?

I'm having trouble with a couple of points. One, Ridge and co. came on with the gravest of tones on Sunday to talk about this treasure trove of specific info they had unearthed. Intentional or not, for it to come out the next day that it was 3-4 years old undermines the credibility of what he is saying and also makes it look like they were just trolling for some big success to say that Homeland Security is really on top of things. I want to believe that I can believe him, but this "overlooked" point would make anyone wonder.

Second, is that really where we are in all this? Our intelligence is so far behind the game that the best we can do is trumpet the fact we are three years behind when it comes to terrorist plans? That's pretty damn scary, if its true.

Finally, you true believers are plenty willing to trash the media, but this story just points up one more example of how valuable the press really is in keeping us a free and truthful society. Checks and balances are just annoyances in the eyes of those currently in power, but where would we be without them?
In reference to the briefing document - the info inside was a lot less salient than the title would lead one to believe.

And unfortunately, that IS what we've come to. Our leaders feel compelled to release info in urgent tones because the repercussions for NOT doing so are severe...and the media would be more than willing to pile on.

Essential reporting I'm fine with...but this notion of a "gotcha" the media is playing with this is just not in line with the nation's interests. The info was updated in January 2004, and based on what we know about Al Qaeda's MO, they spend years on something and frequently update old intel before they strike.

There is no black helicopter, no smoking gun on this. The press would do us better service by looking into something important instead of pandering to the least common denominator.
Fine, Carl, except I don't think they were playing "gotcha." In a matter of hours after the announcement, the press didn't uncover the fact that the intelligence was dated. Someone on the inside, who must have had a problem with how it was rolled out, had to have told them.

This is too important and should be above politics. I believe that info came out because others within the government sensed that Ridge and his boys were overstating their hand, and maybe because Ridge made it look political by dropping in the gratuituous praise for Bush and his strong policies.

Should they have announced they had major new info and raised the terror alert level? Yes. Should they have gone directly to specific agencies and potential targets identified and quietly shared this information? Again, yes. But why tell al Qaeda and the rest of the world exactly what it is we think we know? Just telling them we're on to something big might cause hesitation on their part and vaccinate the entire country from anything they may be about to happen. With Sunday's announcement, we may have given them comfort that we're not aware of their latest plans. That would be tragic.

Finally, we have to be able to believe our government officials on matters this important. This is another one of the major sins of the Bush administration -- by playing a more heavy-handed brand of politics in government operations than heretofore seen, Americans can trust their government less than ever before. Despising government may be good for the conservative agenda, but it's terrible for the country on the whole.
08-03-2004 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
 
If it was done for political reasons.....why wasn't it done during the convention? :rolleyes:
08-03-2004 07:33 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Dogger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #11
 
They caugh the guy at the end or after the conventions.
08-04-2004 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #12
 
I wonder if this guy reads Socko's posts? :rolleyes:

Quote:Dots, All Folks
JOHN PODHORETZ
August 4, 2004 -- THIS weekend, the Bush ad ministration took various pieces of data, turned them into data points, and placed each point on a piece of graph paper just like we did back in high school.
Data point No. 1: Multiple sources indicating al Qaeda fully intends to try and hit us before the election.

Data point No. 2: Hard evidence from the hard drive of an al Qaeda member featuring very specific information about five buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington. The information gathered on the buildings was several years old. But the United States only found out that al Qaeda had it over the weekend.

Then the Bush administration drew a line from point 1 to point 2. If al Qaeda wants to hit us and it has all kinds of material on those five buildings, then prudence dictates that we intensify our efforts to protect those buildings in order to stave off an attack.

In other words, the Bush administration connected the dots.

Remember how the Bush administration was attacked during the 9/11 Commission hearings precisely because it didn't "connect the dots" before 9/11? On March 25, the editorial writers at The New York Times excoriated the administration for what they called "the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists." The Times even praised the Clinton administration by contrast for being more serious about terrorism than the Bushies were.

The conclusion of the 9/11 Commission was that there had been a "failure of vision," an inability to see into a likely future in which al Qaeda would hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

 

Administration critics were particularly insistent on the predictive value of the Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, with the headline that read "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike In U.S." How could the president not have sent everyone to battle stations to find the data to connect the dots that would have prevented 9/11?

This weekend, the administration did exactly what its critics said it should have done before 9/11. It connected the dots. It raised the threat level to orange and let America and the world know which specific buildings were under threat.

And how have some administration critics reacted?

They accuse Bush of playing politics with terror. Of lying, in other words, about the peril we're in.

Let's go right to the source, The New York Times editorial page: "The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way," the editorialists wrote yesterday.

This is true. And it's entirely beside the point. So al Qaeda collected the data about the five buildings before 9/11. The data they gathered are still relevant.

Take the Citigroup Center. Aside from heightened security, nothing has changed about the place: 53rd Street still runs west, 54th runs east, Lex goes downtown, Third goes uptown and the garage entrances are where they were. The information may be a few years old. But it isn't dated.

No matter, saith The Times: "This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

No, what The Times and others chastising the administration for the supposedly suspicious timing of this terror alert are demonstrating is that they were simply "using" the connect-the-dots argument "for political gain."

It's only four months since one-time counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke electrified the nation by going before the 9/11 Commission and claiming that Bush had failed to grasp the threat from al Qaeda. Clarke went so far as to apologize to the families of those killed on 9/11 for the failure.

This was the first successful political assault on the president's chief strength — his leadership of the War on Terror. By portraying Bush as having somehow allowed 9/11 to happen, Bush's enemies finally found a way to seem harder-line and more serious about the subject than the president himself.

No matter. They didn't mean it. They don't mean it. They just want to destroy him, and they'll say or do or argue just about anything to see that it happens.

Some of the attacks on Bush are crazy. Some are intellectually indefensible spin, and therefore nothing less than contemptible. This latest attack goes in the "contemptible" pile.

I've got news for you Socko, Bin laden wanting to attack the US was not news to anyone. No where there enough in that report to act on. No where, no who, no how. Nothing.

But since it's so easy, here you go. Bin Laden still determined to attack US. Now Socko, go out and stop it. If it's that easy to do you should have no problem.

These terror alerts are not politically motivated other than if they don't issue them, and something happens, it's your party that will crucify Bush for not releasing the info. Funny enough you're still crucifying him now because he did. Bush can't win with you people, and you will attack him no matter what he does.

He's acting on the side of caution, and I respect him for it.
08-04-2004 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #13
 
Quote:Should they have announced they had major new info and raised the terror alert level? Yes. Should they have gone directly to specific agencies and potential targets identified and quietly shared this information? Again, yes. But why tell al Qaeda and the rest of the world exactly what it is we think we know? Just telling them we're on to something big might cause hesitation on their part and vaccinate the entire country from anything they may be about to happen. With Sunday's announcement, we may have given them comfort that we're not aware of their latest plans. That would be tragic.

There is a good idea. Let's just announce that we are on to something big. That will really deter them and cause them to rethink.
:rolleyes:

Does it even register with you what an assinine statement that is? Being specific does two things. It makes the people AT THOSE LOCATIONS, you know, the one's that would die if your veiled threat didn't work, more aware and alert. It also puts security at a high level around those locations. It also tells Al Queda that we can get info on you and you're not as stealth as you might think. That means they have to take longer to plan and they're not as secure in their ability to keep it a secret as they may have thought.

And by the way, had they come out and said exactly what you suggested they say, you be on here right now arguing the announcement was pointless because it lacked specifics and you'd assert it was politically motivated.

You know you would, and you can't deny it.
08-04-2004 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
 
I have a few questions for Liberals. Do you guys think that Bin Laden atacked us because Bush was in office? Do you feel electing Kerry will get the terrorists to stop their malicious intent? What do you guys think the terrorists ultimate goal is?

I know, I just want some liberal input.
08-04-2004 07:55 PM
Quote this message in a reply
HuskieDan Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,502
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #15
 
I have absolutely no idea.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone in power would use fear and protection for political gains. At least I want to believe that no one would use it. I wouldn't be surprised though if someone did - power does that to people. Personally, I do think that it's going to begin to have a boy crying wolf affect eventually, and so the idea of warning the public of potential targets is going to be largely ignored except by those that weren't going to set foot out of their houses anyways.

BTW - I'm not sure a terrorist strike around our election time would have a similar ouster effect as it did in Spain - the Spanish ruling party was largely ousted because of mistrust after they initially insisted the act was pulled off by Basque separatists ETA.
08-04-2004 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.