beyond cynicism
Jul. 9th, 2004 10:32 amWhy is it no surprise to me that as soon as the Democratic Party began attracting attention by Kerry's announcement of a VP choice, there was another vague but excited warning from the Department of Homeland Security of imminent terrorist attacks, probably targeting the elections process, an attack that is said to be "large-scale" and with the "capability to succeed" (what does that even mean, in real terms?) but which does not warrant an increase in the hysteria-inducing colour-code threat index?
Why, other than partisan politics, would an announcement like this be made when there is no information to release ("we lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack") when all of the statements about al Qaida plans and intentions begin with phrases like "Al-Qaeda, for many years, has, in fact, tried to carry out attacks here ..." or phrased in such broad terms as to be effectively meaningless. Al Qaida has "an intent and preparation to carry out major attacks that would inflict major casualties, as well as to create economic damage, political damage, psychological damage to the United States"? Really? I would never have guessed. What breaking intercepts have suddenly given us that insight?
Exchanges like the one I'll close with suggest that nothing really new is known in relation to the actual threat, and that this report could have been made at any time in the past few months, or in the months to come, without being substantially different. So why now? The answer, on the face of it, seems fairly obvious.
Why, other than partisan politics, would an announcement like this be made when there is no information to release ("we lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack") when all of the statements about al Qaida plans and intentions begin with phrases like "Al-Qaeda, for many years, has, in fact, tried to carry out attacks here ..." or phrased in such broad terms as to be effectively meaningless. Al Qaida has "an intent and preparation to carry out major attacks that would inflict major casualties, as well as to create economic damage, political damage, psychological damage to the United States"? Really? I would never have guessed. What breaking intercepts have suddenly given us that insight?
Exchanges like the one I'll close with suggest that nothing really new is known in relation to the actual threat, and that this report could have been made at any time in the past few months, or in the months to come, without being substantially different. So why now? The answer, on the face of it, seems fairly obvious.
Question: But is any of this intelligence different than it was last month when we heard this exact same warning? Is anything different in the past several weeks? Is there new intelligence? Is there a new threat? Or is this exactly what we heard last month?
Senior Intelligence Official:: I think I was mentioning that there has been a growing body of intelligence over the past several years, and I think over the past several months I would say we continue to gain knowledge and understanding about what al-Qaeda is planning to do. So every day there are nuggets that come in to the broader intelligence community that we take a look at and start trying to connect those pieces. So it's a dynamic process that allows us to have a better understanding of exactly what we are facing as far as the al-Qaeda threat.