I was reading this
article and I could not help but start
to remember all of the coincidences of timing in terms of terror threats and major political events,whether elections or just new legislation.
To say that terror threats, particularly in the US, are not politically motivated is like saying that the price of oil is not affected by the
political situation in the Middle East.
There is obviously some reason for the timing of these "leaks" or statements from officials.
Lets look at the current situation. Bush is currently at a 27% approval rating. GOP senators are dissenting from the Iraq agenda all over the place.
The recent report in Iraq confirms that things are not going well. The White House is under several subpoenas right now. There is a lot going
"COINCIDENTALLY" there are now FRSH terror warnings about summer spectaculars and NEW threats.
So what is the strategy. Are Americans still buying into the idea that if there is a perceived threat from terrorists that clearly we need to forgive
our leaders for their bad decisions? That anything goes in legislation so long as it keeps us safe?
I pose a couple of questions.
1 - Is the timing of these attacks deliberate -and if so - does the administration have full control over things? ie if the directive comes from the
White House to Chertoff saying that the Terror threat needs to be reintroduced do they simply make up a threat, or do they use existing evidence of a
threat and "leak out" a little info with zero details.
2- If this is truly a foreign threat each and every time and there is some imminent danger, how can the terrorists still hold any credibility after so
many hollow promises.
One would think that, although they were failed attacks, the recent London car bombs would have been riddled with evidence pointing to Al Qaida so
that at least the message would have been clear that Al Qaida is plotting again.
I guess what I am looking for is opinions on HOW MUCH control the US government has on these threats and if they are legitimate threats then how much
control do they have over the actual threat. Most importantly, once the threat is invented - how do they leverage that threat so powerfully with new
elections or legislation?
I would like people to bring as many examples of "Nexus" points of when a new threat came out and how it coincided with politics. Also, opinions on
the questions asked above.