A Long, Hot Summer
Published May 26, 2004
Quotes from the Washington Post:
- Federal officials have information suggesting that al Qaeda has people in the United States preparing to mount a large-scale terrorist attack this summer, sources familiar with the information said yesterday.
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III intend to hold a joint news conference this afternoon to discuss the threat and to ask Americans to watch for several suspected al Qaeda operatives who may be in the country, officials said.
The concerns are driven by intelligence deemed credible that was obtained about a month ago indicating an attack may be planned between now and Labor Day.
That information dovetails with other intelligence "chatter" suggesting that al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United States and other countries.
- Intelligence and law enforcement officials are trying to strengthen security at the presidential nominating conventions this summer in Boston and New York. They are also concerned about the possible targeting of other prominent events, starting with the World War II Memorial ceremony Saturday in the District, the Group of Eight summit June 8-10 in Sea Island, Ga., and the Summer Olympic Games in August in Athens.
I think the terrorists are most focused on the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer. Such an attack on the US homeland would show the weakness of our current security measures, likely harming Bush. And even a relatively small attack at one of these events, like a suicide bomber who kills a few delegates, would be huge news that would not go away by the November election.
Such an attack might have the opposite effect, however, and actually lead to Bush's re-election. If the public rallies around their Commander-In-Chief after another attack in a major US city, then the US public will have shown themselves to be made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate.
Australia though, I think, would dump Howard if a pre-election attack were to occur. Howard's pro-US policies would be viewed as having made Australia a target. Howard's opponent, if elected, would likely bring his country's forces home from Iraq, issuing another victory for the terrorists.
Anyway, what do ya'll think about the terror threat?
RJ Elliott is a graduate student studying Criminal Justice at the University Of Central Florida. His likes include nature, sports, and pierced blondes. He dislikes daytime television, left-wing dictators, and lead-tainted Chinese imports. He is ambivalent about Angelina Jolie.
- A Long, Hot Summer
- Published: May 26, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Media
- Writer: RJ Elliott
- RJ Elliott's BC Writer page
- RJ Elliott's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Spanish voters will have blood on their hands if an attack occurs. They showed the terrorists that the West is capable of being intimidated by mass-slaughter.
I thought only the terrorists have blood on their hands. By your reasoning, I suppose Bush has blood on his hands for not taking the threat seriously before the WTC attacks.
Such an attack on the US homeland would show the weakness of our current security measures, likely harming Bush.
Rightfully so, wouldn't you think? I mean, he is supposed to be making us safer.
If the public rallies around their Commander-In-Chief after another attack in a major US city, then the US public will have shown themselves to be made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate.
If the American public rallies around a leader who has demonstrably failed to do his job, they will have shown themselves to be complete idiots.
I agree that the Australians might respond differently. They are most likely less invested in the Iraq war and Bush's policies than Americans are. If they see it as a U.S. policy more than an Australian policy, they will be quicker to drop their support when they perceive it to cost more than they expected; just as we would be quicker to pull out of a U.N. effort after suffering unexpected casualties.
While the Madrid bombing showed that the terrorists can influence elections, and a pro-Bush government was removed from power (which is what the terrorists wanted), I think a terrorist attack in the U.S. would have the opposite effect, which is also what the terrorists want.
The terrorist attack in Spain got voters to turn against their government. A terrorist attack in the U.S. would get voters to rally behind their government.
Terrorists want an increasingly isolated U.S. to fight back. They WANT to make this an Islamic war vs. Christianity. It will strengthen their membership. Islamic youth will flock to Al Queda to defend their faith, even though our government will repeatedly say it isn't about religion.
I do not think that a terrorist attack in the U.S. will hurt Bush. It will cause voters to rally behind him and his erroneously perceived correct 'path'. The perception of America in regards to the war on terror will only be pushed further along, down the path it is going, rather than switch directions as it did in Spain.
Is it irony that a terrorist attack, on a countrys soil, regardless of whether it hurts that countrys government support or bolsters that governments support still ends up with the terrorists winning their agenda, no matter which way it goes?
If the public rallies around their Commander-In-Chief after another attack in a major US city, then the US public will have shown themselves to be made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate.
Whether the US public shows it is made of stronger stuff than the Spanish electorate is irrelevant. If the public rallies behind the president after another attack, then the public will have played right into the terrorists hands. JUST like in Spain.
Any truth to the rumor that an *Al Kayda operative was seen around Crawford Texas carrying a bag of pretzels and a moutain bike?
*don't give me shit about the way I phonetically spell an Arabic word, 'kay? Everybody should follow my lead, 'cuz who ever heard of a Q not followed by a U?!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/15990)
Interesting take RJ - why do you think Australia would respond differently from the US?