[stevesnj]

Can this so called new channel scare Americans anymore than they have been doing? It seems ever since Tom Ridge's announcement of possible terror attacks and blatant ass kissing of George Bush Fox News is scaring enough people to keep us on edge to the point of being terrorists themselves...this is fair and balanced?...these people are idiots.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
Can this so called new channel scare Americans anymore than they have been doing? It seems ever since Tom Ridge's announcement of possible terror attacks and blatant ass kissing of George Bush Fox News is scaring enough people to keep us on edge to the point of being terrorists themselves...this is fair and balanced?...these people are idiots.

And other networks aren't covering the the terrorists threats?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
Can this so called new channel scare Americans anymore than they have been doing? It seems ever since Tom Ridge's announcement of possible terror attacks and blatant ass kissing of George Bush Fox News is scaring enough people to keep us on edge to the point of being terrorists themselves...this is fair and balanced?...these people are idiots.

It's fair and balanced to the people who like Fox News...

Let's face it, there's an appetite for the type of news that Fox chooses to show, as evidenced by their popularity. They're giving their audience what they want. There's nothing idiotic about that.

[BRussell]

I thought the terrorism alert was a good combination of homeland security and campaign event.

And so this afternoon I ask our citizens for their watchful eyes as we continue to monitor this situation. I certainly realize that this is sobering news, not just about the intent of our enemies, but of their specific plans and a glimpse into their methods.

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I thought the terrorism alert was a good combination of homeland security and campaign event.

Yeah, we'll probably be seeing more such campaign events *ahem* I mean security alerts in the next months.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Yeah, we'll probably be seeing more such campaign events *ahem* I mean security alerts in the next months.

There it is! I knew we couldn't get far before the bush-haters called this a campaign ploy. The same people who will say that Bush didn't/ isn't doing enough when the killer muslims attack again.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There it is! I knew we couldn't get far before the bush-haters called this a campaign ploy. The same people who will say that Bush didn't/ isn't doing enough when the killer muslims attack again.

bingo.

I was thinking how silly it was to hear liberals complaining about the terror warnings. The sole reason for their existence was founded on the liberal's belief that the government wasn't properly communicating the risk of terrorist threats.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There it is! I knew we couldn't get far before the bush-haters called this a campaign ploy. The same people who will say that Bush didn't/ isn't doing enough when the killer muslims attack again.

Please stop with the "hate" bullsh*t. You don't know me and have no idea who, if anyone, I hate. It sounds juvenile to say the least, and lends nothing to a debate. Disagreement with a policy or government action doesn't boil down to a simple emotion for me, although it may with you. While you're at it, why not stop with disparaging an entire religion, and be constructive for a change. Or do you *hate* all muslims?

[MacGorilla]

To quoth Grand Moff Tarkin "Fear will keep them in line."

[dcolton]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Please stop with the "hate" bullsh*t. You don't know me and have no idea who, if anyone, I hate. It sounds juvenile to say the least, and lends nothing to a debate. Disagreement with a policy or government action doesn't boil down to a simple emotion for me, although it may with you. While you're at it, why not stop with disparaging an entire religion, and be constructive for a change. Or do you *hate* all muslims?

Ohhh...I am getting lectured by someone who thinks terror alerts are a campaign ploy. How great! I will reword my last statement if you think it will stop your panties from bunching up.

As for sounding juvenile and lending nothing to the 'debate'...how does your sophomor[on]ic statement lend to a level of maturity that should be emulated? Or is it okay to spout off outrageous statements in an effort to defame your political opposite? Seem mature to you?

As for killer muslims. You are the one who is claiming it to be the entire religion...I am just talking about killer muslims. You, on the other hand want to bunch one faction in with the entire religion. How shameful. The next thing you are going to call for an internment camp or something. I just don't know how you liberals get away with it.

[BRussell]

dcloton - if it has nothing to do with the campaign, then how do you explain a line like this at the end of a terrorism alert:

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror,

"We must understand that," huh? "The president's leadership in the war against terror," huh? If that one isn't right out of the BC04 playbook, I don't know what is.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
dcloton - if it has nothing to do with the campaign, then how do you explain a line like this at the end of a terrorism alert:

"We must understand that," huh? "The president's leadership in the war against terror," huh? If that one isn't right out of the BC04 playbook, I don't know what is.

And who made the statement? And by whose other leadership are we under right now? Kerry's?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
And who made the statement? And by whose other leadership are we under right now? Kerry's?

The director of homeland security made that statement during a press conference warning Americans of increased terrorism concerns. It's certainly not illegal for him to make a political statement during a terror alert, at least I don't think it is, but it's kind of revealing about what's on his mind, isn't it?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by BRussell:
dcloton - if it has nothing to do with the campaign, then how do you explain a line like this at the end of a terrorism alert:

"We must understand that," huh? "The president's leadership in the war against terror," huh? If that one isn't right out of the BC04 playbook, I don't know what is.

SMACKDOWN! Some people don't understand the difference between news and opinion.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The director of homeland security made that statement during a press conference warning Americans of increased terrorism concerns. It's certainly not illegal for him to make a political statement during a terror alert, at least I don't think it is, but it's kind of revealing about what's on his mind, isn't it?

No, I don't see how it is revealing in any way shape or form. Whose leadership are we under? Would you rather there be no terror warnings? Would you rather Kerry announce terror warnings?

The truth is, in some peoples' minds, Bush can do no right (vice versa as well). It is just a shame that some people will play politics when serious issues arise. It is just a shame that terror threats have all of a sudden become ammunition for conspiracy theorists, who think a terror attack against the United States would help President Bush instead of Kerry when IMO, another attack on US soil would benefit Kerry moreso than Bush.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Ohhh...I am getting lectured by someone who thinks terror alerts are a campaign ploy.

No, I'm calling you on the "hate" bullsh*t, because it is too often used to defame anyone who opposes a government policy. Grow up.

Or is it okay to spout off outrageous statements in an effort to defame your political opposite?

You mean like "Bush hater"? So to question the motive behind an action is defaming? I'll remember that, next time you question something.

As for killer muslims. You are the one who is claiming it to be the entire religion...I am just talking about killer muslims.

I am? I don't remember lumping them all together as you seemed to do in your original post. If you can't see why that might be offensive to some, then that's a shame. Next time there's a bombing at an abortion clinic, I'm sure you'll be here talking about the damn killer Christians.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
SMACKDOWN! Some people don't understand the difference between news and opinion.

Some people can't get over dissenting opinions. If I thought that your gay daughter had the right to marry would it still be a smackdown or would I be welcomed into your faction for supporting amoral behavior? You know, there is more than one issue in this world.

Where do you miss the concept that President Bush is our leader...whether you like it or not? Where do you miss the concept that terror alerts are part of this administration...that was/ is/ was/ may be/ could be/ should be supported by the opposing party.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
[B]No, I'm calling you on the "hate" bullsh*t, because it is too often used to defame anyone who opposes a government policy. Grow up.

Or I could resort to name calling.

Nonetheless, you are not a bush hater? Should I refer to you as the one who vehemently opposes our President? Should I refer to you as the one who will dismiss a danger to the American people as politics? Or are you one of those waiting around for a catastrophic event so ou can bash Bush a little more.

You mean like "Bush hater"? So to question the motive behind an action is defaming? I'll remember that, next time you question something.

Posted by YOU:
Yeah, we'll probably be seeing more such campaign events *ahem* I mean security alerts in the next months.

Yeah, you don't seem to be questioning anything to me. But, I hope you do remember.

I am? I don't remember lumping them all together as you seemed to do in your original post. If you can't see why that might be offensive to some, then that's a shame. Next time there's a bombing at an abortion clinic, I'm sure you'll be here talking about the damn killer Christians.

The same as attacking Christianity can be found offensive? When was the last abortion clinic bombing by the way?

As for 'killer' muslims...seems to me as if I am seperating them from muslims. You are the one lumping them together...It is called 'veiled' hate. You know, a do good liberal trying to hide his hate/ fear by attacking those who aren't afraid of having an opinion.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, I don't see how it is revealing in any way shape or form.

Maybe because during a terror alert he should be thinking of the safety of the country rather than reelection?

Would you rather there be no terror warnings?

I think whether it's being overdone is debatable, but I do think it's interesting that they slip in BC04 campaign slogans into the alerts. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising since they have HHS put out TV ads supposedly explaining Medicare which are really BC04 campaign ads and they have the IRS mail tax cut checks which include what amount to little re-election flyers.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Or I could resort to name calling.

You already did.

Do you even understand the definition of hate? How does that reconcile with disagreement? I have no personal feelings of ill-will towards Bush just because I think he's not the best guy for the job. But I suspect you are smarter than you portray yourself and you understand what I am saying. Feel free to continue pretending otherwise though.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think whether it's being overdone is debatable...

Okay, I can mildly agree that it is debateable and I can see how it can be an issue. Nonetheless, if it is being overdone, wouldn't the news networks limit how much they air warnings?

The original poster claimed that Fox was overplaying the warning...my point was that CNN and every other network is covering it just as much if not more.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
You already did.

Nope, I am conservative...if I called you or anyone else a name I would have been banned before I could hit the refresh button.

Do you even understand the definition of hate? How does that reconcile with disagreement? I have no personal feelings of ill-will towards Bush just because I think he's not the best guy for the job. But I suspect you are smarter than you portray yourself and you understand what I am saying. Feel free to continue pretending otherwise though.

Okay. I made the mistake of lumping you in with a few of the more radical left wing nuts in here who do make ridiculous statements like your previous post and blame Bush for anything and everything.

[boots]

I don't care if it was a partisan thing or not, but I do think it's stupid. If nothing else, the way these announcements are coming out it basically making it possible for "them" (the terrorists) to do recon on our information system and response. I'm all for DOING something with intelligence, but I'm not sure EVERYONE needs to know what's going on. Of course, there's a fine line there, but....

[dcolton]

Originally posted by boots:
I don't care if it was a partisan thing or not, but I do think it's stupid. If nothing else, the way these announcements are coming out it basically making it possible for "them" (the terrorists) to do recon on our information system and response. I'm all for DOING something with intelligence, but I'm not sure EVERYONE needs to know what's going on. Of course, there's a fine line there, but....

From FoxNews...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127729,00.html

WASHINGTON — The government's very public warning to financial institutions may actually deter a bombing but also raises questions about what the next step will be for both terrorists and defenders.

And among security experts and former counterintelligence officials who had criticized previous terrorism warnings as too vague or perhaps politically motivated, there was wide praise for the unique level of detail in the warning Sunday to a handful of specific financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J.

"If I worked in one of those buildings, I would feel very safe now," and not just because the security there will be tightened, said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA (search) counterterrorism chief. "Given that it's captured material and now made public, there's a good chance it won't happen. Al Qaeda has to realize the mission has been compromised."

Among the extraordinary detail that Al Qaeda (search) operatives had assembled about potential target buildings were such details as architectural elements that might prevent collapse, a count of 14 pedestrians per minute along the sidewalk outside one building at midweek, locations of security checkpoints inside buildings and identification of days when fewer guards worked or elevators were shut down, a senior intelligence official said.


The government's willingness to cite specific buildings as targets "is a step forward, compared to the past when they just waved a red flag and said 'Al Qaeda's coming, Al Qaeda's coming,'" said I.C. Smith, a retired FBI (search) field office chief who spent most of his 25-year career in counterintelligence.

"You are going to end up with some awfully nervous people who work in and around those buildings," Smith said.

But if captured information isn't part of an outdated plot, the warning could abort a planned truck bombing, Smith said. A counterterrorism official, requesting anonymity because of the sensitivity, said the Al Qaeda operatives conducted the vulnerability assessments in the captured material both before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Smith added, however, that authorities need to be alert to the chance Al Qaeda might be trying to deceive U.S. agents. "Someday they are going to send us indications they are going one way and then go another way. That will happen sooner or later," Smith said.

John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, said Sunday's alert "was outstanding compared to previous ones. At least I know which buildings to stay away from."

But the proximity of the target buildings to the street raised other questions in Pike's mind. Would Pennsylvania Avenue be closed to truck traffic outside the World Bank? Local officials planned additional vehicle checks but did not immediately close any streets.

"And all the enemy has to do is dial down its list of prominent targets," Pike added. "If they can't reach the World Bank, maybe they'll go for the Federal Reserve or the FBI," both of which are only handful of blocks away in either direction.

At some point, "if you going to try to defend all the high-value targets in Washington from truck bombs, you might turn the entire federal core into a pedestrian mall."

[Y3a]

NONE of the news is fair or balanced! NOT CNN, NPR, FOX, CBS or any of them. All you get is opinions stated as facts, by "journalists" who want to be "News Reporters". As a result, you don't get facts, and your decisions and observations are just as flawed as Bush's when he gets 'Intel' from the 'keystone kops like' Intel folks.

[boots]

Which is all well and good until we get fed some very detailed wrong information that leads us to put all of our attention toward, say, the financial district is NY and DC while the real target is in LA.

I think showing the cards like we are is a problem. It shows them to much of how we respond. I don't like the general/vague warnings either. Just causes people to freak out. Do what you have to do in the areas that need to be secured, but it doesn't have to be a national spectacle every time we get a piece of intelligence.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Some people can't get over dissenting opinions. If I thought that your gay daughter had the right to marry would it still be a smackdown or would I be welcomed into your faction for supporting amoral behavior? You know, there is more than one issue in this world.

Where do you miss the concept that President Bush is our leader...whether you like it or not? Where do you miss the concept that terror alerts are part of this administration...that was/ is/ was/ may be/ could be/ should be supported by the opposing party.

I'm well aware of who our "leader" is, unfortunately. The fact still remains that Fox's using that line about," But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror,..." is nothing but a blatant, biased statement, which has nothing to do with "news". Fox is the worst at this of all the major "news" organizations. That's all that was being said here.

You really have an issue about my daughter being a lesbian, don't you? You should really get over your homophobia; she's not interested in converting you, really. No, I mean really! What she does in the privacy of her bedroom is none of your damn business, no matter how fearful you are.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I'm well aware of who our "leader" is, unfortunately. The fact still remains that Fox's using that line about," But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror,..." is nothing but a blatant, biased statement, which has nothing to do with "news". Fox is the worst at this of all the major "news" organizations. That's all that was being said here.

Thank's..at least someone gets it.

Also we Americans are to keep our eyes open and report anything suspicious...well my neighbor is a pain in the ass and looks suspicious...should I report him? Why doesn't the Bush Admin post something on it's homeland security site something in the effect of 'if you see suspicious arab looking persons report them' or 'if you see Muslims driving around where they shouldn't be please call the police' is it not PC to say that? But isn't that what we should be doing? We are guessing whats suspicious if Tom Ridge knows a specific profile of a terrorist why doesn't he post it on his web site or send a pamphlet to every household in America? Or hold a press conference telling us or giving an example what to look for? Not say the President's war on terror ...blah blah blah..

[sanity assassin]

***Spolier alert***

Al-Qaeeda warnings are old news, up to 4 years old info being passed off as new. OMG!!!

lol. what a joke the 'Publican party is, more pre-election scare-mongering crapola. This is like watching a really bad movie in which the plot's twists and turns are blatantly obvious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3530358.stm

[Spliffdaddy]

and lasts 8 years...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The fact still remains that Fox's using that line about," But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror,..." is nothing but a blatant, biased statement, which has nothing to do with "news".

I just wanted to point out that that statement was made by Tom Ridge during his terrorism alert, not Fox news. Of course, it's much worse that it was the director of homeland security that said this during a public security announcement than if it was Fox news that made the statement. But I just wanted to make that clear - I realize it wasn't clear from my post.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just wanted to point out that that statement was made by Tom Ridge during his terrorism alert, not Fox news. Of course, it's much worse that it was the director of homeland security that said this during a public security announcement than if it was Fox news that made the statement. But I just wanted to make that clear - I realize it wasn't clear from my post.

Yes, that was the point of my original post - that we will likely be seeing other not-so-subtle campaign plugs integrated with future official statements.

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Some people can't get over dissenting opinions. If I thought that your gay daughter had the right to marry would it still be a smackdown or would I be welcomed into your faction for supporting amoral behavior? You know, there is more than one issue in this world.

Where do you miss the concept that President Bush is our leader...whether you like it or not? Where do you miss the concept that terror alerts are part of this administration...that was/ is/ was/ may be/ could be/ should be supported by the opposing party.

Bush may be the president - but he is not a Leader

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Maybe because during a terror alert he should be thinking of the safety of the country rather than reelection?


I think whether it's being overdone is debatable, but I do think it's interesting that they slip in BC04 campaign slogans into the alerts. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising since they have HHS put out TV ads supposedly explaining Medicare which are really BC04 campaign ads and they have the IRS mail tax cut checks which include what amount to little re-election flyers.

omg!

is this true? that is insane!

I don't mind Bush using his accomplishment for his campaign, but mixing terror warning and political messages is purely unethical!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
And who made the statement? And by whose other leadership are we under right now? Kerry's?

I thought the President's duty is to serve the nation.

The justification for his reelection still has to be demonstrated, and by and large, that is not his duty to the nation!

Or am I wrong?

[bewebste]

I've taken issue with most of the past terror announcements and "orange alerts" the Bush administration has put forth in the past couple years, mostly because whenever one of them comes up, they never have any sort of specific information, and while raising security is fine in response to a possible threat, I see no need to go making a big announcement about it, flashing "Orange Alert" in front of everyone, etc. The message basically amounts to "We think someone might attack somewhere sometime, but we don't know who, when, where, or how, so why don't you all just be nervous about it for a while." In some cases, such as Ashcroft's little press conference a month or two ago, which many others in Washington responded to saying something like "Uh, we don't know what the heck he's talking about", it doesn't inspire too much confidence in the system.

This alert, however, appears to be different, in that it is with respect to specific locations, and based on specific intelligence. I don't really buy into the criticism that it's based on "three year old evidence," mainly because of the long-term nature of Al-Qaeda's plans. The 9/11 attacks took years to plan, and they view their fight against America et al. to be a possibly centuries long struggle, so three years doesn't really amount to all that much. However, I do think that the current alert would be taken more seriously if all the past alerts hadn't been trumped up so much.

P.S. I do, however, think Tom Ridge's rah-rah comment about our Great Leader was uncalled for in the midst of an announcement of a threat to the American people.