It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Terror Alert" Alert.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Well right wingers, I hate to say we told you so... well not really, so "We told you so!" Apparently the terror alerts were issued for political reasons after all, Tom Ridge has been kind enough to provide us with a glimpse into the mandates for the terror alerts that went on and off during the elections. Funny, you don't see much about the terror alert level now that Diebold won the election, er I mean Bush. No wonder the man resigned, he probably got tired of lying.


www.usatoday.com...
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
There's absolutely nothing in your referenced article that indicates that anything was done for political reasons! You're spinning so out of control now that you are lying to the ATS community.

From the article:



The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.


Just because they had disagreements over the intelligence and whether the threat should have been raised, doesn't mean it was done for political gain.

Remember your pal George "slam dunk" Tenet is a Democrat, hardly a Bush political hack... :shk:



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
yeah... sure thing bubba.




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
yea I read this today, pathetic is all I can say, and Joe Six-pack cares more about what time the ballgame is on the boob toob.
I do agree with you though twitchy, WE TOLD YOU SO
I wonder if the Bush Butchers in Washington will respond to this by saying Ridge has a grudge, ignore him he's traitor



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Nice graph Twichy!


I wonder how low this 'terrorist threat/approval rating' game of limbo can go before they pull out a new 9/11?

They're coming out with more and more of them as his approval gets lower and lower, it's only a matter of time (weeks) until they pull a rabbit out of the hat to get that approval back up there.

My prediction is: Bin Laden is 'killed' (he's been dead since 2001) in Pakistan after a 'hot tip'. This is used to justify the work being done on the 'War on Terror' and the US and Isreal will get very agressive with Iran purely on the wave of 'killing Bin Laden'. Luckily, Al-Zarqawi will still be a phantom ghost for them to chase and i'm waiting for the report that he's moved into Iran.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I'm confused by one thing. You guys scream that the government had evidence but didn't put the country on alert before 9/11. And then you scream that when there is evidence, as flimsy as it may be (maybe you think they'll call Ridge up and say "hi we plan on bombing you tomorrow) the alert does get raised.

Which one is it then folks? What if the government does find some evidence and ignores it, instead of raising the level, and we get hit again? You will be the same people blasting Bush and Ridge for not alerting the people, won't you?

This confuses me.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I'm confused by one thing. You guys scream that the government had evidence but didn't put the country on alert before 9/11. And then you scream that when there is evidence, as flimsy as it may be (maybe you think they'll call Ridge up and say "hi we plan on bombing you tomorrow) the alert does get raised.

Which one is it then folks? What if the government does find some evidence and ignores it, instead of raising the level, and we get hit again? You will be the same people blasting Bush and Ridge for not alerting the people, won't you?

This confuses me.


Why couldn't they have let 9/11 happen to realise the PNAC and everything they are doing now, hence no pre-9/11 warnings AND then post 9/11 use the Machiavellian tactics of a 'constant threat & manipulation' to keep the public from making them responsable for their actions in wars and foriegn policy that is directly attributed to 9/11 in the first place?

It depends on what they say and how they say it but having think tanks like the PNAC wishing for a new perl habour, having the CIA come up with things like the 'World Wide Attack Matrix' which outline the use of propaganda to manipulate, introducing Patriot Acts etc, makes some people believe that they know exactly what they are doing and it's based on manipulation rather than a genuine warning of a threat.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Shroud, the question still remains though.

If it were your call... think about it...

If evidence was found that indicated the possibility of an attack next week, would your call be to raise the alert level to make the people aware something's up, or disregard the intelligence so as not to have people think you're trying to boost your polls.

I'm not saying I have the answer. Not at all. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that with certain folks here the government is in the position of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

If they raise it they're looking for popularity boosts, if they don't raise it they're not being open with the people and not being responsible. Doesn't sound like you leave much room for anyone to do what's "right."



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
This confuses me.


Why does this confuse you? This is how some of them think:

Scenario A
1) 'The man' is just trying to bring us down.
2) Whomever is President is considered 'the man.'
3) When in doubt, it is 'the man' who is trying to bring us down.

Scenario B
1) I am superior to you and you are arrogant.
2) EVERYTHING is Bush's fault!
3) The world owes me something.
4) Nothing is worth fighting for.
5) I hate any kind of authority...including my boss at McDonald's

Scenario C
1) The working class are slaves to the bourgeoisie.
2) The capitalist pigs lie to you about your so called 'freedom.'
3) George Orwell said it all, man. Don't you have eyes?
4) The proletariat will take up arms and right the world's wrongs.

Now that I think about it, you can mix and match scenarios.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Shroud, the question still remains though.

If it were your call... think about it...

If evidence was found that indicated the possibility of an attack next week, would your call be to raise the alert level to make the people aware something's up, or disregard the intelligence so as not to have people think you're trying to boost your polls.

I'm not saying I have the answer. Not at all. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that with certain folks here the government is in the position of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

If they raise it they're looking for popularity boosts, if they don't raise it they're not being open with the people and not being responsible. Doesn't sound like you leave much room for anyone to do what's "right."


Like i said, it depends on what they say and when they say it. Some of these alerts have been proven to be bogus or way way outdated and in that case they are more likely to be used for political, manipulative reasons.

It all depends on which side of the fence you sit. If you believe there's been a conspiracy or an outcome they are working at, then it makes a lot of sense that they would put out false alarms to boost their approval. If you believe there is no conspiracy and the government is trying to do the best they can then you'll see those warnings as helpful.

Personally, i believe SOME of the warnings are bogus and i believe there's manipulative reasons behind it than just to tell us to keep our heads up.

Your right, some governments are damned if they do, damned if they don't but for some reason this government in paticular and the people associated with it to me seem more likely to be manipulative and use propaganda and false threats against the people to further their agenda, which is pretty clearly laid out.

What suprises me most is that people can gloss over the PNAC, Worldwide Attack Matrix, Patriot Acts etc and say the government is trying to help when on paper, their own ideals are more aligned to squeezing as much out of the people as they can in order to realise their reason for being in those positions.

Personally, this government hasn't earned my respect for a lot of reasons so i tend to fall on the side that believes they would manipulate.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
This doesn't mean they did it for political reasons, it just means they were a little jumpy, and the "we told you so" is so childish
.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
yeah... sure thing bubba.


Nice! all that proves is that the terror alert have NO RELATION to public opinion. There were terror alerts issued when public opinion were at their peak and others when they where at their lowest. All that proves is that there are no relations between the two.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
yeah... sure thing bubba.



I wonder if you could predict the next 9/11 size event with this chart in relation to dropping a coin?

Think of the red median line as measuring 'height' of a coin bouncing on a table.
Then think of each Terror alert as the coin hitting the table.,
As the height of each bounce continues to be less, the frequencey of the coin hitting the table increases.
When the coin stops moving, something will happen!


That's how it reads in a way, in other words, it looks like it's heading to a point where there will be a big change as spikes in aproval rating all come with a major event.

It is six months old thou, a more updated one would be interesting.
I think June 05 will be a spike moment and i'm betting on Bin Laden being 'killed' and the road to an Iran war with Isreal to get started in a defining way.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
lol @ people who think Bush gives a crap about his approval rating, let alone that he's willing to kill or scare Americans to make it go up.

Bush has done whatever he's wanted whether it's high or low.
I can't believe people are stupid enough to believe the terror alerts were to make it go higher, if that was the case they would have stopped issuing them as that has NEVER worked (thanks for the graph that shows that).



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The "terror" alerts did always seem to come at politically advantageous moments, the chart above seems to document that pretty well.

No suprise here, these people are experts at psychological manipulation, and they are as cynical and dishonest as you can get.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Anyone who can see correlation, let alone causation, from the graph Twitchy provided is, in my opinion, nuts.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Look at the median line, then trace a line upwards from each terror alert. Each alert correlates with a negative spike in the poll data.

Causation? Who knows?
But if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The "terror" alerts did always seem to come at politically advantageous moments, the chart above seems to document that pretty well.

No suprise here, these people are experts at psychological manipulation, and they are as cynical and dishonest as you can get.

There were 14 times when the alert was raised on that chart.
Please tell me how those 14 times corresponded with any "politically advantageous" moments.

No....

No, just tell me 1 time.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   


No, just tell me 1 time.


Well, I hate to do this, I'm tired already, but since you asked:

February 5, 2002 - Angry lawmakers to subpoena Ken Lay over Enron scandal. Journalists inquire about Lay's close connections to the Bush administration.

February 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack.

May 22, 2002 -- Bush goes on the record as opposing the formation of an independent commission to look into why 9/11 happened

May 24, 2002 - Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations.

June 9, 2002 -- FBI Whistleblower Talks To Congress
Coleen Rowley testifies she had tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students before 9/11. She compared the agency's bureaucracy to the "Little Shop Of Horrors," telling Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

June 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft conducts an unusual and urgent press conference from Russia. He announces that they had arrested Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured, and transferred to the custody of the DOD from the Justice Department.

September 20, 2002 -- In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry.

September 23, 2002 -- Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a US war with Iraq.

September 10-24, 2002 - The attorney general elevates the terror alert. Later on, b Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level.

February 6, 2003 -- Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq.

February 9, 2003 - Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack.

May 12, 2003 -- Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who was the top civil administrator in Iraq, left his post and other senior officials were also replaced.

May 20, 2003 - The United States raises the nation's terror threat level, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an "operational period worldwide" and might attack within the US.

July 25, 2003 -- After the Bush administration delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The government also deletes 28 pages of the report believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11.

July 28, 2003 -- US troops charged with beating Iraqi POWs.

July 29 - Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes.

August 18, 2003 -- President Bush admits that major combat operations are continuing in Iraq. On May 1, Bush went on national TV to proclaim the end "major combat operations."

September 4, 2003 -- Both The New York Times and Vanity Fair start investigating the very damaging allegations that Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.

September 5, 2003 - A Department of Homeland Security advisory warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States.

December 18, 2003 -- 9/11 Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable.

Dec. 19 2003 -- The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq.

Same day -- David Kay quits, having found no WMDs.

Dec. 21, 2003 - Ridge raises the terror threat level just in time for the holidays.

March 15, 2004 -- Military families organize together to oppose the war.

March 17, 2004 -- Condoleeza opts of 9/11 Commission hearings. She repeats her refusal several times during the week, and later on appears on "60 Minutes" to explain her position.

March 18, 2004 - News report that a "high target" Al Qaeda leader has been "sorrouded" in the border with Pakistan. Cnn suggests it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri. Reports of fierce fighting continue. Source After the fighting ends, it is reported that it wasn't any "high value" target in the battle after all.

March 21, 2004 The State Department issues a terror alert.


March 21, 2004 -- Richard Clarke gives an exclusive to 60 Minutes about his book “Against All Enemies” just days before he is due to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes."

March 30, 2004 -- Rice continues to refuse to testify publicly in front of 9/11 Commission.

April 1, 2004 -- US contractors killed and mutilated in Iraq.

Same Day – The Pentagon issues a report that medical evacuations in Iraq hit 18,000. Source

Same day. Bush refuses to release Clinton papers to 9/11 Commission.

April 2, 2004 - A bulletin sent from the FBI & Homeland Security warn of terrorists that may try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer.

May 10, 2004 -- Bush approval rating hits lowest point (46%)

May 18, 2004 -- Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately mislead about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air.

May 18, 2004 – Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal.

May 19, 2004 -- Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror.

Same day – White House stonewalls UN on papers about Halliburton’s contracts in Iraq.

Same day – Tom Ridge testifies before 9/11 Commission on this second day of hearings in NYC.

Same day - The 9/11 Commission begins another round of hearings in NYC.

May 19, 2004 -- Nothing but bad news about prisoner abuse in Iraq, including breaking news that the Pentagon was told about the abuses back in November.

Senate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings on Abu Ghraib abuses.

May 25, 2004 - Homeland Security issues a terror alert: Major terror attack possible this summer.

June 7, 2004 -- The Wall Street Journal publishes exclusive report demonstrating that the Pentagon provided legal rationales and loopholes in 2003 to use torture and methods of near-torture, and how to avoid various international treaties and US laws. Furthermore, the leaked memos suggest that they circumvent US and international laws, the US president should change the rules as they may see fit. All media outlets pick up on this explosive report.

June 14, 2004 - VP Dick Cheney is caught lying about the alleged ties of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Cheney is unable to provide any evidence to his assertions after journalists inquire. On June 15 Bush Bush defends Cheney's unsourced assertions but does not provide any evidence either that there was a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.

une 15, 2004 - The Justice Department announces to the press they have thwarted an imminent terror plot to bomb malls in Ohio. Somali immigrant arrested and charged on the case.

Later on it is revealed that the Somali immigrant had been arrested one year earlier for his connections to terrorism, but there was nothing "imminent" in that case. The suspect was arrested in Nov. 28, 2003, and the Court papers filed by the government allege that a plot dated to March 2000. His indictment wasn't announced until June 15, 2004.


July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.

July 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions.

July 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack.


July 22, 2004 -- The 9/11 Commission releases their findings. While many criticize the commission for not going far enough, their report includes many examples of inaction and lack of leadership from the Bush administration.

July 26-29 -- Democratic Convention shows party unity and strong leadership. Kerry/Edwards provide electrifying acceptance speeches. John Kerry's acceptance speech is praised even by some conservative analysts. Campaign appearances immediately following the convention draw larger-than-expected crowds.

August 1, 2004 -- White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever.

August 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas.

Later it is revealed that much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old.

Same day - Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists. It seems odd that the President's daughters would be allowed to visit a building supposedly about to be attacked by terrorists.


Quack quack


Information adapted (with gratitude) from JuliusBlog, dated August 3, 2004.
Sources linked from said site for confirmation.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I neglected to mention one other salient point: since the November elections, I don't think there have been any of these terror alerts...

However I am sure this is entirely coincidental.




top topics



 
1

log in

join