Jackson Free Press

NY Tmes reports: "Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way. But the officials continued to regard the information as significant and troubling because the reconnaissance already conducted has provided Al Qaeda with the knowledge necessary to carry out attacks against the sites in Manhattan, Washington and Newark. They said Al Qaeda had often struck years after its operatives began surveillance of an intended target."

"Taken together with a separate, more general stream of intelligence, which indicates that Al Qaeda intends to strike in the United States this year, possibly in New York or Washington, the officials said even the dated but highly detailed evidence of surveillance was sufficient to prompt the authorities to undertake a global effort to track down the unidentified suspects involved in the surveillance operation. [...] Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said on Monday in an interview on PBS that surveillance reports, apparently collected by Qaeda operatives had been "gathered in 2000 and 2001.'' But she added that information may have been updated as recently as January."

AP ]is reporting that the White House is on the defensive about using old intelligence, dating back to 2001 and about people no longer in the U.S., to create a major terrorism alert yesterday. Questions are being raised over whether the White House timed the alert for political reasons, just as the Democratic Convention ended, but the administration is dying using the threat for political purposes.

Previous Comments

ID

85493

Comment

Update today in Times: Senior government officials said Tuesday that new intelligence pointing to a current threat of a terrorist attack on financial targets in New York and possibly in Washington - not just information about surveillance on specific buildings over the years - was a major factor in the decision over the weekend to raise the terrorism alert level. The officials said the separate stream of intelligence, which they had not previously disclosed, reached the White House only late last week and was part of a flow that the officials said had prompted them to act urgently in the last few days. The officials disclosed the information a day after the Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that much of the surveillance activity cited last weekend by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to justify the latest, specific warnings had been at least three years old. At the same time, the White House offered a vigorous defense of its decision to heighten the alert in Manhattan, Newark and Washington, with officials saying there was still good reason for alarm.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-04T11:07:22-06:00

ID

85494

Comment

Did anyone catch former CIA agent Larry Johnson on NewsHour Tuesday? He was quite critical of how the administration is handling this, saying we are now at the point where "Terrorism alert fatique has set in", and that shouting from the rooftops is no way to thwart or capture would-be attackers. I not only have terrorism alert fatigue; the Bush administration has blundered so many times I now assume every statement out of their mouths and every press release are lies until that rare species, the responsible journalist, shows otherwise.

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-08-04T17:19:26-06:00

ID

85495

Comment

A NY Times editorial today dings the White House on this week's terror alerts: [A]fter 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve. It isn't. The events of this week showed starkly that the system is not working. [...]The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign. [...]For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday. [...]The higher alert levels require local governments to take enormously expensive actions, for which Washington is not paying its share. [...] It's shocking that Washington has not followed through on its own information by underwriting the protections cities need to stay safe. Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. [...] The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda. [...]On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.'' It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement. Read full editorial

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-05T13:40:14-06:00

ID

85496

Comment

My favorite part of the press conference was when a reporter asked: "Will they be transparent to traders and those involved in the markets?" That question was regarding the tactics that would be implemented to secure the area. Apparently, Ridge did not understand the concept of "transparent" security and responded in a confused tone. "I think, I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but let me try to answer it this way. These are significant institutions that relate to our leadership role in the international economy, but to a certain extent, it's really not the destruction of a single building will not undermine the greatest and strongest economy in the world." Ummm... What the hell kind of answer is that? And this man is head of security for this country? Yikes! For anyone curious or that may have missed the full press conference, the transcripts are online here.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-08-05T15:57:09-06:00

ID

85497

Comment

AP today: "Bush said the government had an obligation to tell Americans about the threats, even though some have questioned whether the warnings were politically motivated to strengthen the president's image as commander in chief in an election year." 'When we find out intelligence that is real, that threatens people, I believe we have an obligation as government to share that with people,' Bush told a convention of minority journalists. 'What if we didn't share that with people and something was to happen? What would you write? What would you say?'"

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-06T08:54:55-06:00

ID

85498

Comment

'When we find out intelligence that is real, that threatens people, I believe we have an obligation as government to share that with people...' As well, they apparently have an obligation to provide intelligence that is not real and that does not threaten people. ;-)

Author

kaust

Date

2004-08-06T08:58:11-06:00

ID

85499

Comment

It's too bad he didn't have that attitude back in August 2001 when he was briefed on the pending Osama bin Laden threat. Does it qualify as a "flip-flop" to now say the public has a right to know? ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-06T09:03:07-06:00