Yeah, I’m sure that kind of stuff never happens, bilt. Given that this most recent threat was based on intel derived before 9/11, it sure lends a lot of credence to those prior warnings where they never provided any other info than “we are on high alert”.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure that kind of stuff never happens, bilt. Given that this most recent threat was based on intel derived before 9/11, it sure lends a lot of credence to those prior warnings where they never provided any other info than “we are on high alert”. [/quote]
So what? it was believed that the 9/11 plan was hatched in the mid 1990’s, you are telling me because this information which one intel official has stated “is the most detailed information i have seen in my 24 years of service”, is from a few years ago, that those places are in any less risk.
thanks, but i’m happy that there are a new ring of jersey barriers and cops with submachine guns around my place of employment…even if it is just for the warm tingling feeling it gives me inside.
The information was found only 1 week ago in a raid in Pakistan. It highlights all the reforms we have recently made that it was made public so quickly, not even the dems are complaining about this because Kerry was briefed on the issue by the White House. Quit politicking with national security. If they didn?t come out with it and something happened can you imagine the shit storm that would have occurred??? Its not like the terrorist are going to be sporting about it and say ?we are going to attack on such and such day, you only have to guard then?
Tyler23,
You either believe Tom Ridge or you don’t, (I believe him). Personally, I thought the timing of Bill Clinton’s various bombing expeditions was just a tad suspicious in light of his impeachment hearings going on at the same time. Then again who knows?
Who is to say what is needed and what is not needed. Certainly not you and I, as we do not have the information in front of us. We will watch our favorite talking head and then believe what is in our best interest. Politics is strange…right?
If the latest terror threat is untrue (which is certainly possible, as everything is possible in politics) Then you know for sure that Bush will not give up the Presidency (as his father did) so easily.
Dirty tricks, such as revealing Bush’s DWI two nights before the previous presidential election are not exclusive to one party. I think there is enough underhanded schemes on both sides to fill volumes. Don’t let this one bother you (if in fact it is a dirty trick). There will be plenty more on both sides…stay tuned!
“Since polling became a routine part of politics, the only other candidate who failed to see any improvement in his standing after the convention that nominated him was George McGovern in 1972.”
If you are to young to remember, or are not a student of political history, McGovern was defeated by a large margin in 72’. In fact, he won only one state, Massachusetts!
I am not suggesting that Kerry will win only one state this November. However, the lack of a convention bounce is far more serious than some may suggest. Just ask George McGovern!
All this shows is how weak a candidate Kerry really is. Not that Bush is much better, if at all.
It truly is a shame that Kerry and Bush are the best this great country has to offer right now.
Dustin
Vote Peroutka in 04
Some polls are actually showing that Bush got a bounce out of the democratic convention! This would absolutely be a first.
Missouri is putting a gay-marraige amendment on the ballot in November. Ohio is possibly looking to do the same.
If this happens, I think you can throw all the polling data up to this point out the window.
Conservatives will flock to the polls in record numbers to vote against gay marraige (which in Mo. is running 60-40 against). While they are standing behind the magic curtain - they’ll more than likely pull a lever for G-dub as well.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure that kind of stuff never happens, bilt. Given that this most recent threat was based on intel derived before 9/11, it sure lends a lot of credence to those prior warnings where they never provided any other info than “we are on high alert”. [/quote]
Horse puckey. The people claiming this is politics are, in an Orwellian twist, the ones playing politics with this.
Consider only that Karl Rove, evil genius that he is, probably would have saved such a tactic for when it would have mattered more if he were to use such a thing.
Or, if you’re inclined to look at the facts, which I presume you are even given the ridiculous nature of the charge you have repeated, consider these two facts:
-
Our government did not come into possession of this info until recently, regardless of the age of the information itself. Actually, we came into possession of this information right around the time Kerry was making his acceptance speech. While some of the Democrats may have preferred something released right then to take away attention from the speech, I’m sure the conspiracy theorists (embodied by Howard Dean and, gag, Michael Moore among the official wing of the DNC) would have been frothing at the mouth had it been released at that time, immediately upon its receipt.
-
Aside from its “newness to us” aspect, some of the information was actually of new vintage itself, and was only a few weeks and a few months old, respectively. Most of this info was gleaned from the Pakistani interrogation of newly captured al Queda suspects.
So, in the end, who, exactly, is trying to play politics with homeland security?
biltritewave,
Actually this sentiment was widely echoed throughout the world. You need to step outside the narrow confines of the American media. But I forgot that you Republicans believe that no other country has every contributed anything worthwhile to the world. ‘La Carte du Peur’, was on the front page of ‘Le Monde’ but thats the French and their the worst of all the foreigners.
[quote]Flanker wrote:
thats the French and their the worst of all the foreigners.[/quote]
Actually, the worst of all the foreigners are the Bavarians. The French came in a distant sixth, well behind Belgium and just ahead of Finland.
[quote]Flanker wrote:
biltritewave,
Actually this sentiment was widely echoed throughout the world. You need to step outside the narrow confines of the American media. But I forgot that you Republicans believe that no other country has every contributed anything worthwhile to the world. ‘La Carte du Peur’, was on the front page of ‘Le Monde’ but thats the French and their the worst of all the foreigners.[/quote]
I have no idea which comment of mine you are referring to. Explain?
Gee…I wonder how come the non-biased media are not all over the “no bounce” for Kerry news?
Can you imagine Bush in that same position? I can see the headline:
“NO BOUNCE SPELLS TROUBLE FOR BUSH”
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure that kind of stuff never happens, bilt. Given that this most recent threat was based on intel derived before 9/11, it sure lends a lot of credence to those prior warnings where they never provided any other info than “we are on high alert”. [/quote]
Wall Street Journal Editorial
Wag the Pundits
August 6, 2004; Page A8
If the subject weren’t so serious we’d chalk it all up to the August news doldrums. The Bush Administration makes some breakthrough antiterror arrests and promptly shares some of its new information with the public. For its trouble, it then finds itself subject to handwringing “news analyses” wondering whether the timing was politically motivated and editorials lecturing on the temperature of terror warnings as if we were talking about Goldilocks’s porridge.
Please. At Manhattan’s Citicorp building and in the financial district where we sit, there just isn’t much debate about this at all. People are happy to have the information, even if some of the building surveillance that’s been described is several years old.
Everyone knows enough about al Qaeda’s modus operandi by now to understand that the group plans years in advance and doesn’t easily give up on targets. They also understand that the same people nitpicking now would be the first to point the finger if there was an attack and such information had been withheld.
The key player here appears to be an al Qaeda communications officer and terror planner named Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, who was arrested three weeks ago in Pakistan. On his computer, authorities discovered documents and photographs indicating extensive surveillance of buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Also arrested in Pakistan last month was Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, wanted by the U.S. for his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings – an attack that was five years in the planning.
Information from Mr. Khan apparently also pointed to targets in Britain, including Heathrow Airport. That led to the arrest in and around London this week of 12 more suspects, including an alleged senior al Qaeda figure named Abu Musa al Hindi. U.S. officials described the arrests as “part of this web that emanates from Pakistan” and suggested that other operations based on the Khan information were still ongoing.
Meanwhile, after an apparently unrelated sting operation, the FBI announced the arrest yesterday of two Muslim men in Albany on charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with a plot to kill the Pakistani ambassador in New York. The two were reported to be affiliated with the al Qaeda-linked terror group Ansar al Islam.
It would be foolish to suggest that these important arrests have neutralized the al Qaeda threat. But they will surely prove disruptive to the group’s operations world-wide. Other cells will not know to what extent their own activities may have been compromised. These arrests are also another empirical nail in the coffin of the theory that Iraq has been a big distraction from the broader war on terror.
And what about all those allies we’ve supposedly alienated? They seem quite happy to help the U.S., thank you, if only for their own self-interest. Just this week Pakistani Prime Minister designate Shaukat Aziz escaped an assassination attempt, and the Musharraf government seems more committed to the war on terror than ever. Somehow we doubt they need to be ordered to round up terror suspects on a U.S. political schedule, as one Washington political magazine recently theorized.
Joe Lieberman has, as usual, been warning the Democrats away from the fever swamps here, saying nobody “in their right mind” would believe that President Bush would “scare people for political reasons.” And John Kerry has at least been smart enough to stay above the fray. But the Democratic contender would probably be wise to actively rein in the likes of Howard Dean, who was still rambling conspiratorially as of Wednesday night.
Speculation about the timing of arrests and the motives for terror warnings doesn’t do anything to reassure voters that the Democratic Party is serious about protecting them. We’re pretty sure most Americans see the latest blows to al Qaeda as unalloyed good news, even if some of the credit has to go to the Bush Administration.
Disappointing? (That’s the proper spelling, by the way). He’s leading the incumbent in August. Remember 6 months ago, when Bush looked invincible? How the worm has turned. It’s amusing to see neocons try to spin these matters to influence public opinion, even in tiny forums like these. Sorry, ZEB - on November 3rd, Bush will be looking for a new business to run into the ground.
Me to ZEB on November 3, 2004: Hey ZEB, you like apples?
DrS,
While I am not a betting man I would be tempted to place a large wager on President Bush being reelected!
Better yet, Just for fun, when Bush is reelected you can post “Zeb was correct” 25 times (in one post). That would satisfy my need for “genuine” adulation. Naturally, if I am wrong (I won’t be) I will do the same for you.
What do you say Dr.?
Interesting poll numbers out recently show Edwards not helping Kerry in the south. One more very bad sign for the Kerry/Edwards ticket!
Eh, I still think polls are basically useless. Futures markets, on the other hand are great.
Check out this analysis:
http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/007506.html
THE EMERGING SHAPE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
I have already discussed the impact of the futures markets in predicting the race for the Presidency, but the market that I noted only takes a look at the popular vote. And as anyone who has taken Civics 101 knows, the President is elected by the Electoral College. What do the futures markets have to say about that?
For the answer, we go to Tradesports,
which has a page detailing individual futures markets for each state. If we take the states where George W. Bush has more than an even money shot of winning at the writing of this post, we find that the following states are in his column:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
All of this is enough to give the President 266 electoral votes–4 shy of the magic number needed to win.
Which state can serve as the pickup for the Bush campaign to put them over the top? West Virginia–which is currently running at even money and which has 8 electoral votes. The state is traditionally won by Democratic Presidential candidates, but Bush took it four years ago.
It should be noted that in states that are in Kerry’s column, he is running very strong according to Tradesports’s reckoning. Kerry’s weakest state is Wisconsin, where Bush is given a 41.3% chance of winning. If the Bush campaign can target Wisconsin, and at the very least make Kerry fight for it, it may very well severely handicap his campaign–if not deal a death blow altogether. On the other hand, the President will have to secure Florida, where Tradesports gives him a 50.4% chance of winning. That’s a margin too close for comfort.
Actually, the worst of all the foreigners are the Bavarians. The French came in a distant sixth, well behind Belgium and just ahead of Finland.
I agree, let’s change Bavarian cream pie, to Freedom cream pie. Belgium waffles are now Liberty waffles. I would insult the Finns but unfortunately I can not think of any food items they have invent. But let them take it as a warning if they do invent a food, we will promptly rename it. Take that Old Europe!
Flanker…i think this is in the wrong thread. I assume its supposed to be in the France and Germany thread
I’m always curiuos on how these polls operate. How do they randomnly choose people to represent the broad spectrum. Are people in rurals areas equally represented?
I personally don’t know.
All I do know is that I’ve never been officially polled, nor have I’ve ever known anybody to be polled either.
Is there anybody here who has been polled, or knows anybody who has?