POLITICS: Playing Politics With Threats of Pre-Election Terror, page 1

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:18 PM

link

The threats of Pre-Election terrorist attacks in the U.S.A. have not gone away, in fact according to the following report, these threats are very much still real. However the feds have gone quiet, and according to the report the reason the current Republican administration has gone quiet on these threats is mainly because Democrats, as in the past may say the administration is playing up a terror threat to frighten voters.

ABCNEWS.com Full Article

WASHINGTON Oct. 19, 2004 � FBI, Justice Department and Homeland Security Department officials aren't talking much about the threat of a terrorist attack to disrupt the election in two weeks.

It hasn't gone away; they're just wary of saying anything in public that could prompt Democrats to charge the administration is playing up a terror threat to frighten voters.

It was far different in the months and weeks before the political conventions in July and August. Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge all openly discussed the seriousness of the threat.

By all accounts, many hundreds of law enforcement agents are working around the clock to prevent al-Qaida from pulling off the major attack that intelligence suggests the terror network wants to carry out before the Nov. 2 election.

But Ashcroft, Mueller and Ridge have been largely silent of late about a pre-election threat, and there has been no change in the nation's color-coded threat level, which remains at the midpoint of yellow, or elevated.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Not warning the public about real threats of terrorist attacks because the other side could use it to their advantage?

Do we have to be political with the threats of terrorism?

It would seem that all is fair game in politics now, even the safety of the American public.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by UM_Gazz]

marg6043

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:23 PM

link

Yes I agree with you, but the problems is that as soon the media gets his hand on the "terror alerts" they are the ones that make it into a circus.

And we all know that most of the terrors alerts now comes because of Zarqawi, so knowing were he is at, I guess is hard to see the validity of the threats.

Neverless is not something that should be keep away from the public.

Gools

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:30 PM

link

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is still threatening America. I heard that today (or yesterday and reported today) he repeated his threat of a NUCLEAR attack happening in the US if Kerry is elected!

So yeah...good question... "Do we have to be political with the threats of terrorism?"

Dick Cheney seems to think so.

This administration has "cried wolf" so often and lied so much that THEY CREATED this situation (where if they do it again - no matter how real the threat - they will not be believed).

Makes me think of that poster in college titled "Everything I need to know in life I learned in kinder-garden".

[edit on 10/19/2004 by Gools]

Megalodon

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:48 PM

link

Not to sound like a total idiot here...but even if there was going to be a terrorist attack what would knowing about it really do? I mean, sure you can buy water and get into your little bomb shelter, but most people don't have one. If I said to you that there would be a terrorist attack on Nov. 1st, but didn't say where or how, what are you going to do that would prevent you from being at risk?

I know there are going to be a lot of answers to my questions, but I am saying that realistically not everyone in the U.S. will be able to get into Canada overnight to escape the threat.

Guess I am almost more content to be happy and ignorant on terror threats than scared and informed, I would like the day I die on to be a good one