It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


"Change in US President would spur terror plot" Chertoff

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:40 AM

"Change in US President would spur terror plot" Chertoff

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack, no matter who wins the White House, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.

``Any period of transition creates a greater vulnerability, meaning there's more likelihood of distraction,'' Chertoff said in an interview yesterday. ``You have to be concerned it will create an operational opportunity for terrorists.''
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:40 AM
I find it rather ominous that Chertoff would state that "any change" in leader at this point would lead to vulnerability.

Is he trying to set the stage for Bush to remain president using the PATRIOT act under martial law because of the "exceptional threat" that the USA faces from terrorists?

Either way, this is not a good sign. Either he is being honest, in which case the USA is in danger; or he is setting the stage for a Bush coup. My gut says probably the latter, since Bush has seemed eerily calm about exiting his office. That may be because he doesnt want to tarnish McCain's campaign, but one presumes he would still create some sort of fanfare in his last moments in the sun.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:58 AM
I thought if we fought the terrorists "over there" we wouldn't have to fight them over here.

Just goes to show you if we saved our money instead of spending it on these wars we could have used it to shore up our borders, increase our HOMELAND security, ah hell, we could have invented and built a protective, bullet proof freaking bubble around our country with the money we spent "over there".

Freaking Bush/Cheney doctrine. Two wars and were are still afraid in our own damn country!

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:59 AM
Why wouldn't he be calm about getting out? People have done nothing but bash and critize everything he's done or said for the last 8 years. A lesser man would tell everyone to kiss his Texas A$$ as he's walking out the door.
I mean seriously, do you think this man really wants to stay in office?

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:02 AM
So Chertoff is trying to tell us he plans his next "terrorist attack" shortly after the election.


At least he's warning us this time.

[edit on 22/10/08 by NuclearPaul]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:14 AM
To be perfectly honest I've been expecting this for ages anyway - probably most other members also, I'm 85% sure that either the US or the UK will see real terriost strikes before the end of 2009, and most probably in the first few months of 2009. If not in the UK/USA then definatly 'softer' targets in the EU... I'm not necessalary talking on the scale of 9/11, but maybe many small to medium attacks.

Just in the last few days there was another thread ref. Powell suggesting that if Obama got in then somethinf big would happen towards the end of January 'to test his metle', and more than likely either in the mid east or Russia - which to me means Russia will either do somethning directly, or more likely, by proxy.

Just flippin hope whatever it is it ain't nuke related.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:17 AM
This serial killer is always talking bull.

Thats all people ever hear from him, about how this person wants to do this and that to america. While the real terrorists america, murder and torture anyone they want, for fun.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:23 AM
it makes perfect sense what Chertoff is saying. the first 6 months after a new president takes office is the worst time for the president to keep his focus. he's busy trying to get his cabinet confirmed by the senate. trying to get policies he wants put in place started. the new president is concentrating on "house keeping" so to speak.

from a tactical stand point it makes perfect sense to wait until a new president has taken place to try anything. Hit the U.S. while the head of the gov't is preoccupied.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:27 AM
Well let’s see now, did something big happen after Bush got in? Nope, a year nine months later. Did something big happen right after Clinton? Bush 1?Reagan?

So where are they getting this supposition that a new president is always tested? If I’m missing something here please show me what.

So Biden, Powell and Skeletor all start singing the same tune at the same time but we’re not supposed to figure out that there’s something in common here? Just coincidence I suppose. I’m really not sure what the goal is here but I guess we’ll find out.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:37 AM
does it really matter anyway? what the hell difference does it make if terrorists attack when bush leaves, even if it was on the same scale as 9?11 it's better than having bush in the whitehouse. more americans have died in iraq/afghanistan than on 9?11 anyway, so i guess bush is a bigger killer than osama one way or the other.

perhaps bush could go to the front line for a couple of months, he has time to go to war now that he won't be so busy starting wars.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by resistor

Bush didn't take office until 2001 so it was 9 months after he took office.
the newly elected president doesn't take the oath of office until Jan of the next year. just like whoever wins this nov. will not be president until Jan of 2009 when Bush's term ends.

The 93 bombing of the world trade center took place in feb. of 1993 a month after clinton took office.

the uss cole was bombed in oct of 2000 a month before bush was elected.

So that goes to show that the months before and right after a new president are "good" times to take action against the U.S. to many distractions.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Mercenary2007]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:50 AM
It would also be an opportunity for the new president to be seen as a man of action, when in reality it will mean a scared populace who will allow whoever is elected to pass whatever laws they want to in the name of security.

Just why would a president be distracted anyway?

Doesn't he have people to look after these things for him?

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:58 AM
Terrorists are small-potatoes to what really is killing Americans (and those around the world). It's just that we don't pay attention to the things that don't go "boom". Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, DUI, smoking-related, etc. All things we "can" control to some extent through effort.

Some have likened the wars on terrorism with fighting against a large wasp nest with a broomstick. You go in there and hit the nest hoping to kill a few - then you just anger others - you keep swinging and hit a few more and anger some more. Anger builds on their part - and you want more broomsticks... Sounds a bit like what has gone on. Now, after many years, the Taliban have started to hit against US forces in Afghanistan. The theatre moves around a bit but may not ever end.

Of course there will be a terrorist-plot against the US or US-interests. There have been plots for decades. Has nothing to do with the president. I'd be more suspect if all of them stopped cold after a new president was elected. I'd suspect that the new president had changed the forces of the universal space-time continuum and had warped reality.

If the IRA comes back and bombs in the UK in the next few years will we send troops to Ireland? And how about all the general negative activity in Africa that we continue to ignore?

The war on terror isn't only about the terrorists. It's about how unsafe our government wants you to feel - and they will control your mind using this unsurity. Has the government assured us that nothing will ever happen again here? No, they haven't - nor can they ever. It's up to us as individuals to feel comfortable whether or not we spend a Trillion dollars chasing wasps.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by bonaire]

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:09 AM
We have to examine what Chertoff gains by making this statement.

Is he pushing for greater powers to combat the threat?

Is he suggesting that a change of leader is not acceptable in security terms?

Does he want to forewarn people of something that they can do nothing to prevent?

I just found it rather wierd that he would make a statement such as this, which clearly does nothing but unsettle people since they can't do anything about it.

They don't disclose information regarding UFOs for fear of mass panic, but they will readily do so in terrorist cases? Thats a clear sign to me that although the terror threat is real, it is being used by politicians to grab more and more power.

Next stop : RFID chipville.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by 44soulslayer

My worry is the planned terror event.

I don't think that they plan on keeping Bush in office.

I don't think that they would use idle threats like this to grab more power. We have been threatened with terror attacks for a long time now and IMHO it will take more than a vague threat to snatch any additional powers.

I think the world economy is on its death bed and won't survive on its own for long. They need a world war to get the money flowing again. So, when some terror event happens early next year that drags the entire world into war, they can just sit back and say "See, we told you so!" Deflect the blame to the boogieman... I mean the terrorists.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by Karlhungis

I think you nailed it. The media no longer asks us if we believe 911 was an inside job. EVERYBODY does. EVERYBODY will suspect the next attack was an inside job. This is a weak attempt to fake us out.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 07:40 AM
I mean seriously...what a huge heaping big load of MALARKY!

Does the CIA mysteriously become weaker? The Army or Air Force? The Police? Let's see, anything slowing my EMS service down? Nope.

Well just what in the sam-hill is he talk'n about?

That there is any collective comprehension of the field manure spewing forth from his mouth is utterly amazing.

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:21 AM
First I must engage in the emotional response I wish to 'send' to Chertoff. It is important to get this out of the way because it otherwise will reflect itself in my response in ways that will detract from the message I want to convey.

Dear Mr. Chertoff,

Thank you.


Now the explanation. It would be disingenuous to ignore that Mr. Chertoff's primary value to this Administration was as a show of acquiescence to the Israeli State. His opinion, as a 'patriot' of Israel leadership (as an Israeli citizen) should be reduced to that of our "Joe the Plumber" - in Israel.

Besides, when it comes to terror prevention it seems that Israel is hardly a success story (unless you appreciate their penchant for oppressive conduct outside their own land.)

So Mr. Chertoff is in essence, telling us... "If it were me; I would attack in the months after the change of leadership."


Thanks for the head's up, Mr. Chertoff, but given recent history and my utter disdain for the way you and your country 'use' the US for your gain, I will continue to 'expect' anything at anytime to have its potential source come from within YOUR sphere of influence.

PS - How's the FBI doing? Behaving for you still?

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Maxmars]

top topics


log in