“U.S. officials: Intel dated back as far as 2000, 2001”
U.S. officials say the detailed surveillance photos and documents that prompted higher terror warnings dated from as far back as 2000 and 2001, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday the government concluded “it was essential” to publicize it and raise the terror alert.
Speaking at a news conference in New York, Ridge said that because of the heightened security steps, “We have made it much more difficult for the terrorists to achieve their broad objectives. … We will not become fortress America.”
Officials had said earlier that it wasn’t clear whether the individuals who amassed the information, principally on financial institutions in New York, Newark and Washington, D.C., are still in the country or plotting.
Top Bush administration officials said some of the surveillance was apparently updated as recently as January of this year. And they denied any allegations that the public release of the information now, and the raising of the terror alert, were politically motivated. They said the information was released now because it was just uncovered in Pakistan.
“We don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security,” Ridge said. “Our job is to identify the threat.”
The surveillance actions taken by the plotters were “originally done between 2000 and 2001, but were updated—some were updated—as recently as January of this year,” Fran Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
“And from what we know of al-Qaida’s method … they do them years in advance and then update them before they actually launch the attack,” she said.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that once federal officials get such information, “they do have a responsibility not only to evaluate it, but to get it out.”
But some Democrats have raised concerns that the timing of the release of the information had more to do with politics than with fears that terrorists were about to strike.
Townsend and other officials noted that the information—dating back to 2000 and 2001—was just recently discovered in Pakistan. “We’ve only gotten the intelligence, I would say, in the last 72 hours,” she said Tuesday [my emphases]
…So. Have you decided yet…? Because I bet Oliver Willis has—though he craftily couches his conclusion in the mock-contemplative headline “Hmmmm.” He then excerpts bits of a NYT article without mentioning that the surveillance in question has been updated recently, or that the intel was just now received from Pakistan.
Why would he do such a thing, I wonder…? Or better: Hmmmm.
TalkLeft seems to have decided, also. Responding to the same NYT article, TalkLeft gasps, “Unbelievable,” (you can almost hear the nasally squeak on those middle two syllables, can’t you?) before concluding, “[…] If this is all the Administration had to issue the alert, it’s gone beyond ‘the little boy who cried wolf’ to disingenous (at best) or outright deceitful.”
No mention by TalkLeft of how or when “the Administration” [cue theme from The Parallax View] received the information—just that they acted on “signs” rather than “proof or evidence.” Proof or evidence being an actual attack, one suspects.
Anyway, decide for yourselves. No demagoguery here. protein wisdom believes in nurturing.
If we were attacked, and they didn’t tell us that they had warnings of the attacks it would be politically motivated, according to the left.
If they warn of us of the possibility of attacks including locations, this is also politically motivated.
Every day I care less and less what the left has to say.
In the words of Mark Zunigas- “Screw Them”.
Decide? That’s easy – patently ludicrous attacks on DHS, when there are plenty of legitimate attacks could be made. The problem is, the legitimate attacks don’t play into the Bush=Evil, Kerry=Good bass line.
O-Dub? Talk-Left? Hyperpartisan hacks, I tellya, devoid of any critical thought. Sadly, there’s an audience of mouth-breathing booger-eating mo-rons who lap that stuff up by the squirt.
Oliver who? Flypaper to Stupid?
Sorry, never heard of him.
If the left claims everything is a conspiracy or that Bush lies about everything then one day they assume they will be right and thus vindicated. I look forward to another four years of underestimation by the left. I know it pisses off a lot of conservatives but I find it gratifying and a sign that things are going well.
According to the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32993-2004Aug1.html
(registration required), the warning was based in part on intelligence acquired in a raid in Pakistan on July 25 or so. Can anybody think of a date between July 25 and, say, election day, on which an announcement could have been made that wouldn’t have been characterized as “politically-motivated timing”?
Do the moonbats think like this all the time? And, if they do, can I find some with whom I can play poker?
“The Left” doesn’t have problems with DHS giving us warnings. “The Left” has problems with DHS overhyping the warnings.
In this case the warning could have clearly been “Sites that have been cased in the past are still being cased. We have credible intel that the info that the terrorist collected on these sites has recently been updated and we infer that they are still interested in these sites. These are the site.. X, Y, Z. We have no intel about the timing of these attacks.”
Instead we get… “This is the most biggest theat yet. Thanks to Bush’s War on Terror we’re getting this info to you. We are winning the war!”
I searched for both “This is the most biggest threat yet.” and “This is the most biggest theat yet.” (just in case that wasn’t a typo). I cannot find either. Where did you see this?
I too, Ed, found it difficult to find the quotes.
Secretary Ridge said,
That seems fairly specific and from my interpretation from the remainder of the text satisfy the requirements of how the warning could have been clearly stated.
I had a lot of difficulty finding the quote, “This is the most biggest ‘theat’(most biggest threat wasn’t found as well). Thanks to Bush’s War on Terror we’re getting this info to you. We are winning the war!”. I think you might be referring to paragraph 20 of the entire detailed speech in which Sectretary Ridge says,
If I understand correctly, you’re upset because secretary Ridge dared credit President Bush and his cabinet’s policies at all. To be honest, I like your version better and would be thrilled to hear Secretary Ridge say “the most biggest threat” and “we are winning the war!” because it would be great comedy. Thankfully neither you nor I are in charge of a very serious position made for very serious people.
Nicely put, Dario.
Robin, you did find them, right
Thanks for turning on the lights, Dario. It seems that’s the best way to make the cockroaches scurry for cover.
I certainly can understand how some people might be able to mis-construe Tom Ridge’s statement praising President Bush’s leadership in the war on terror as Tom Ridge praising President Bush’s leadership in the war on terror. Taking Ridge’s statement at face value, I could also see where it would take only the briefest of leaps, especially since Ridge is a Bush appointee, to come to the idea that this praise of the President’s leadership was politically inspired.
Does this mean that the elevation of the status of terror threat was done for the sake of politics? I would hope not.
Really Walter, that’s the best you can do? After all, there are few things funnier than writing a comment after the comment that refutes it has already been put up by Dario.
Robin, let me tell you what happened. When I was first viewing this page neither Dario’s or Jeff’s comments appeared on my screen.
From your comment I didn’t realize that you were unable to find the quotes rather I thought that they were just difficult to find.
When I hit the submit button and my screen refreshed did Dario’s and Jeff’s comments appear.
I apoligize for mis-interpreting your remarks