Cheney Defends Terror Warning
Published August 05, 2004
There have been a number of discussions regarding whether or not the Administration has been politicizing terror alerts. Vice President Dick Cheney had the following to say:
"There has been some commentary from some of our critics - Howard Dean comes to mind - saying somehow this is being hyped for political reasons, that the data we collected here, the casing reports that provided the information on the prospective attacks is old data, i.e., four, five years old," he said. "That just tells me Howard Dean doesn't know anything about how things operate."I've heard criticisms on both sides regarding how this information is dispensed. Some say that the Administration shouldn't reveal any information, and that they should quietly take care of threats. Others suggest that the warnings are too vague, and cause undue panic among the citizenry. If you reveal too much information, though, you could threaten secret operations. The article above also had this to say:Saying that the planning for the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa began four to five years before they happened and that the idea of attacking the United States using hijacked airplanes was first brought to Osama bin Laden's attention in 1996, Mr. Cheney said: "These people are deliberate, they are methodical, their time table is their own. If you hit them and push them back, they may retreat for a while, but they will be back and they are absolutely lethal."
"What I don't know at this point is how the terrorist operatives, facilitators are reacting to all of this," a senior American intelligence official said. "They should be very nervous, they should be very concerned, because the information that has been put out right now is not the totality of our knowledge. There are activities going on right now in this country and overseas that are capitalizing on the information that has been uncovered."I think that this is a case where there is little chance of doing the right thing in everyone's eyes here, and I suspect that John Kerry will have similar problems handling information like this should he be elected President this November.
love it, hate it, get more of it at pacetown
- Cheney Defends Terror Warning
- Published: August 05, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Jeremy Chrysler
- Jeremy Chrysler's BC Writer page
- Jeremy Chrysler's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I agree with the evil one.
The latest threats are not bogus in spite of the claims of some of the extreme Femocrats. Speaking of which what is up with John Ferry saying "reporting for duty" all the time. He is a freak. All that the people know about him (and all that he can remember about himself)is that he is an anti-american idiot who served in Vietnam. Kerry, a scary ferry Femocrat.
If you want our great American soldiers shunned, stoned to death and turned away all while American flag burning is made a new ritual then vote for the scary John Ferry. Need I say more?
Maybe he'll eliminate taxes on Astroglide and butt douches.
I sincerely would like to believe that when the government issues such a warning that it is a valid cause for concern
I would too, but find that I can't with this current administration.
The timing on this latest warning doesn't appear necesarily political to me, but that leaves the others which gave rise to my disbelief. These included Ridge with his "no warning warnings" at pivotal political points and Ashcroft when Bush's poll numbers were sagging last May (it wasn't even Ashcroft's job to issue "no warning warnings").
As Presidents go, 43 is certainly not 41. I guess some apples do fall far from the tree.
The whole "terrorist alert" system is a farce.
Can you imagine a scenario where they LOWER the 'color code' for NY, NJ, and DC?
I'm picturing Herr Ridge pointing at the chart the next time saying in a slightly British accent:
"um, but these go to eleven."
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18305)
I know this has been debated already in another post, but I feel that being alerted to something that doesn't happen is far better than not being alerted to something that does happen. There are always going to be people who cite the "crying wolf" one too many times theory, but I sincerely would like to believe (and I know some people disagree) that when the government issues such a warning that it is a valid cause for concern, and not just a tool of partisan politics. If that is not the case, then it is shameful to prey upon America's fear of another terrorist threat for poliical gain.