posted on August 3, 2004 09:39:17 AM new
What did I say? Everytime Bush's numbers faulter we have another terrorist alert? We're still relying on dated information. Soon, people will pay no attention to the alerts.
Pre-9/11 acts led to alerts
Officials unsure spying on buildings continued
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued since then, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.
More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.
"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as late as January 2004, according to a senior intelligence official. But officials could not say yesterday whether that piece of data was the result of active surveillance by al Qaeda or came instead from information about the buildings that is publicly available.
Several officials also said that much of the information compiled by terrorist operatives about the buildings in Washington, New York and Newark was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including some floor plans.
Many administration officials stressed yesterday that even three-year-old intelligence, when coupled with other information about al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States, justified the massive security response in the three cities. Police and other security teams have been assigned to provide extra protection for the surveilled buildings, identified as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark.
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 3, 2004 09:53:31 AM new
If I am allowed to don a tin foil hat for a moment, Id say that this is the governments way of saying, "Hey, uhhh....terrorists! Remember them? Don't forget about the terrorists, now, you people with attention spans like gnats, remember how Bush was after September 11th! Think about terrorists on election day, vote Bush!"
I pray to God that these threats will not come to pass...and
I also pray that the Repugs/Bush isn't so corrupt or low that they would use terrorism as a means to get votes... I'm not convinced that they wouldn't...mm
posted on August 3, 2004 10:03:58 AM new
Come on crow. You would like that to happen in your heart. Wishing people dead is horrible.
Of course Mr. Kerry would never know about the terriorists threats because he never goes to the meetings that he is supposed to attend as the Senator from Massachusetts...
posted on August 3, 2004 10:28:27 AM new
O, Gawd,Libra, PAY attention and READ!
I DID NOT WISH ANYONE DEAD!
And MR. bush didn't pay any attention to terrorist threats before 9/11 because he was on vacation 42% of the time. It has been reported from a variety of sources that he just didn't show any interest.
Where did YOU get your information that Kerry NEVER goes to any meeting he's supposed to ???????????????????????????
Gee , I wonder how he got to be senator and presidential candidate if he NEVER attended a meeting ???
WOW, he must be better than I thought!
AND HE'S NOT the president (Yet).
It's the PRESIDENT who should have the information , the CORRECT and CURRENT information....he DOESN'T.
posted on August 3, 2004 10:45:26 AM new
If Bush was really concerned about terrorists, then why are our borders still wide open to illegal entry ?
The 9-11 terrorist attacks all could have been avoided if we had enforced FAA and immigration laws that were already on the books. We still fail to enforce these laws.
Al Qaeda uses suicide attacks for a reason. They do not have the ability to use any other means. Our borders are so wide open, why would they use the time and resources for any other type of attack ?
You are so right. They're worried about them coming over here by plane. Ha. They only need enter a boardering country and they're in. They can't keep the illegal Mexicans or Cubans out. What makes them think they can keep al Qaeda at bay this way?
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 3, 2004 11:14:03 AM new
SAFER THEY SAY?
"Security" doesn't just mean freedom from danger, it also means freedom from anxiety, fear and doubt. Our new watchdog government agency would do well to fulfill that part of the bargain as well... or we might start wondering how all that funding and manpower couldn't come up with more concrete intelligence than: a "large-scale attack" is a-comin'. mm
posted on August 3, 2004 11:15:48 AM new
Yep, you can pretty much sail a boat right into any poor harbor town, unload a ton of weapons and blow up a city if you want. Homeland Security is non-existent. Al Q is much more intelligent than that. I really hate to say it, but it is true. The Bush Administration really seems to think that they will strike the same way twice. Come on now.
Ironically, many people seem to think a terrorist attack will lead to a Bush victory. You would have to be a fool to vote for Bush if that happened. Why? Well, because the dipsh*t has had 3 years to improve Homeland Security, and has squandered that window by attacking Iraq who posed no imminent threat to America. Al Qaeda is sitting back, waiting, organizing for a strike alright, but they are not that stupid to let the United States government prepare to squash it. If there is an attack in America, you really should be looking at what the Bush Administration has and hasn't done to protect us. They don't care about American lives. They have proven this already by sending our troops to Iraq in order to up those contracts to American corporations. An attack only legitimizes budget increases for Bush to spend more money on his buddies.
posted on August 3, 2004 11:57:30 AM new
rusty, the only thing wrong with your thinking on a terrorist attack not helping get bush re-appointed is that you're using LOGIC !
If we have a terrorist attack in October bush will give a patriotic, flag waving speech. And if you wave the flag in front of people enough they can't see very clearly. He will get in on a wave of emotional bullship.
Just like after Saddam was "captured" bush's ratings went up and I even heard a Republican
say that just didn't make any sense at all1 Well,it doesn't, too many people rely on their emotions not logic.
posted on August 3, 2004 12:02:30 PM new
Oh, Condi Rice testified before the 9/11 commission that there was no specific terrorist threats that the administrations knew about.
Wanna laugh? Here's one for ya: “We don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security,” Ridge said. This was said when the media questioned whether or not this new alert was politically motivated.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 3, 2004 01:03:56 PM new
Disclaimer: For 12pole and other dolts, Reamond did not write this article.
One of the biggest heists in history
In Iraq, $8.8 billion is MIA. Serious dough even for the big spenders in Washington, D.C.
A pal in Iraq slipped me a draft Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General report, dated July 12, 2004, that blisters the CPA for giving the missing billions to Iraqi ministries without appropriate controls.
The IG report concludes: "The CPA did not provide adequate stewardship of over $8.8 billion in DFI [Development Fund for Iraq] funds provided to Iraqi Ministries through the national budget process. Specifically, the CPA did not establish and implement adequate managerial, financial, and contractual controls over the funds to ensure they were used in a transparent manner."
Offshore bankers must be burning the midnight oil these days with all the new secret accounts pouring out of Baghdad!
And small wonder that L. Paul Bremer went to ground in June after he turned the running of Iraq over to the Iraqis, closed down the CPA and flew home for an attaboy lunch with President Bush at the White House.
I'm not suggesting he's living high on the hog on some Cayman-type island in the Caribbean, but I am saying that he was the guy in charge in Iraq – and when it came to handling the funds in his trust, the IG report clearly states that he "did not exercise adequate fiduciary responsibility over DFI funds provided to Iraqi Ministries."
Early in the occupation, one senior CPA adviser asked for help from Bremer's legal eagles and was blown off with the following double talk: "There are no written guidelines delineating the senior advisers' role, responsibilities and authorities." The Iraqi ministers were expected to "assume responsibility for and exercise authority over all recurring, day-to-day functions of their Ministries" as Bremer & Company went about "increasingly empowering the interim Ministers, consistent with their capabilities."
Their capabilities appear to be well worth investigating, since my sources have been telling me for months that Iraqi payrolls have been heavily padded with ghost soldiers and ghost guards.
According to the IG, "CPA did not implement adequate controls to ensure DFI funds were properly used for salaries of Iraqi employees."
For example, the CPA paid 74,000 guards even though the actual number of guards couldn't be validated. On one site alone, 8,206 guards were on the payroll, but only 603 warm bodies could be counted. Elsewhere, more than $17 million was allocated to guards and the Iraqi army without one piece of backup paper. Pals in Iraq say this has been standard drill since the birth of "a very dysfunctional" CPA.
The report cites, "An improper $120 million disbursement was made in May 2004 because of miscommunication between CPA-OMB and Comptroller's office." In other words, $120 million went south, but was blithely rationalized as some clerks getting their wires crossed!
Meanwhile, the armed forces' PX system (AAFES) is into charging our GIs in Iraq $9 for a 12-inch pizza. A similar pizza is $8.99 at a pizzeria near Greenwich, Conn., where prices compete with Beverly Hills. The manager told me that about half of this price was gross profit. Lt. Col. Debra Pressley of the AAFES insists the $9 price is "fair and competitive with commercial outlets, including locations in Greenwich."
And so it seems to be. But why? Don't our soldiers deserve a better deal? Or is our government reduced to trying to make up the AWOL bucks on our soldiers' backs?
The powers that be sure planned to make a profit by charging $3 per head for watching movies in Iraq – at least until we blew the whistle. But once we broke the story, I got e-mails and phone calls from generals and colonels denying that the $3 charge had been scheduled, even though on July 3, 2004, the deputy commander in Balad, Iraq, put out this communication: "CG (Commanding General) has directed that we begin charging movie fees beginning on 7 July 2004 in the amount of $3.00 per show."
The local general now says it wasn't ever going to happen. Ditto the AAFES general and her spinner minions. Like the 9-11 report and the missing money in Iraq, no one will ever be held responsible.
Welcome to America 2004, where the buck is always passed and the grunts are always dealt the losers' hand.
posted on August 3, 2004 04:03:33 PM new
You've all got your heads stuck in the sand and are in TOTAL denial if you think the likelyhood of another terrorist attack is so far fetched and we're just be 'scared' when there is not an elevated threat as we approach our Nov. elections.
They're doing their job...as they should.
All one has to do is look at what happened in Spain. The terrorists had great success in that country by bombing the trains. Changed the direction of their elections. It surely will have encouraged the terrorists that they *can make a difference in an election time*.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 3, 2004 04:28:23 PM new
crowfarm, now youre the one not paying attention. What they knew, were these specific buildings were under surveillance. It became more important when they obtained that guy's computer in Afghanistan which collaborated what they already had.
These terrorists are not stupid. They will hit new york again because of the financial markets. They should do a shake down every once in awhile so they are not slacking with terrorists filtering in and everyone feeling kind of complacent three years later. Thats exactly what the terrorists are waiting for.
Your focus is so always just on political dirt. You forget something: The people who live and work there deserve a fire drill or two. Even if its highly inconvenient at the time or even if it only appears to others who dont live and work there, as a political maneuver. I could not imagine surviving 9/11 and having to go back to work there like nothing ever happened. They deserve to know the government is keeping vigilant watching out for them.
