Does anyone doubt that if the election was still going on that we'd be still getting regular terror alerts to bump up Bush's ratings?

But now that it's over, all is peace and quiet.

Quite a coincidence, no?

If the election was going to be January 5th, we'd be hearing right now about how the terrorists are going to strike on New Years Eve.

Wertham, where are you? <turns on the Wertham Signal and aims it skyward>

Does anyone doubt that terrorists would want to strike the U.S. before the election much more than they would after it?

Why?

For the same reason they attacked Madrid on 3/11 - to try and influence the outcome.

That's just speculation about Madrid though, the motives and exactly what groups were involved is still unclear. And an attack on the US pre-election would have been the surest way to re-elect Bush.

The attack was 3 days before the election - I think the intentions were pretty clear.

As for Bush being elected - are you suggesting that Bush being the president is not good for the terrorists? Because as far as I can recall, all the Bush opponents in this country were saying that Al Qaeda wants Bush to be the president, since he incites the hatred of the muslim world against America. Am I forgetting something?

In my opinion, Al Qaeda cared much more about projecting the image of being able to pull off such an attack in spite of all the security precautions than about who the president-elect would be.

Newsflash:
Bush won the election, terror alerts are over, everything is fine.

Please get back to work and pay taxes, have a nice day.

What are you saying, that now they're suddenly not invested in projecting the image of their capabilities? That they only wanted to project them a few days before the election? That's interesting considering, 1. 9/11 was not anytime near an on-year election, and 2. There seemed to be plenty of alerts for the over two years leading into the election, not just the month before. Remember when the Arch in St. Luois was on red alert because it was called "the gateway to the west"?

Look, I agree with you that they probably upped the ante a bit before the election, but that doesn't take into consideration all of 2002, 2003, and the complete drop off since a few weeks ago. Interesting considering the Bin Laden tape surfaced at the exact same weekend. Doesn't seem to have bothered them much within one week of that day that he said he could attack again and was planning to do so. Probably because the tape actually was a year and a half old and was only being presented now, but that's another sotry all together.

Look, I'm sure they're still interested in attacking us, but they obviously put more value on disturbing the political process in the country. That's the reason why they attacked Spain on 3/11. Of course 9/11 was not before any election, but that was 3 years ago. A lot can change in 3 years. 3 years ago the U.S. government wasn't interested in attacking Iraq or Afghanistan.

Bottom line is that Archie thinks that the reason for the alerts before the election was political. Which is a borderline conspiracy-theory, considering John Kerry was getting briefed on all the security memos since August, and he and his campaign never raised the issue.

ANd I think you're wrong about St. Lous: the security alert goes into effect for all the country at the same level; the only exception was in August, when they raised the security alert for financial building in Manhattan and Newark and for Washington, DC.



Are you suggesting that AL Jazeera and Al Arabya are in on the conspiracy too? Michael Moore would have to be a high-ranking Al Qaeda leutenant too, considering bin Laden recited F9/11's (which didn't come out until summer '04) plot in that movie.

Raising the security alert is a big deal. There hundreds or even thousands of people involved in the process, some of them are probably democrats. It would be kind of hard to pull it off just for the sake of ratings.

P.S. Welcome back.

Grazie Mille.

I think the alerts before the elections were not directly political, but they were a long standing consistent effort to develop the kind of paranoia that led to opening up national preserves to drilling and deforestation, pushing through my not-so-favorite act, and developing a heirarchy of priotrities that served the agenda of this current circle. Not exactly the same, but I think part of the sudden lack of alerts is to not draw further attention to the situation now that its not necessary. I'll give it a little while, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the cautionary overload of the past few years is going to not resurface even once. We'll have to wait and see.

FYI, Mt. Rushmore, St. Louis Arch, and the Statue of Liberty were specifically declared no-fly zones in 4th of july 2002. not everywhere.

p.s. how did i get so many of hundred posts more than you? I feel like a bully. btw, are bABA and I (and hopefully Ripper and Mike V + co, going to be seeing you on the 2nd?

This one's easy, Archie.

The French journalist who was held by "insurgents" revealed that his captors WANTED Dubya to win. So did Osama. Dubya is like the #1 recruiter for terrorists and/or insurgents. Not only does he do wonders for their membership drives, but he's also the prime reason for terrorism to exist.

The 911 event was an anomaly. It's improbable that anything like it will ever happen again.

It was a LOT like the JFK thing. Intel groups KNEW it was going to happen, and that makes them culpable... even if they didn't actually participate. (They merely obstructed justice in the subsequent investigation.)

These same groups (the usual acronyms we all know and love, and the same ones that are now imperiled by the Bush League because they have long-since outlived their usefulness) knew in 1963 that no other Prez would ever again be taken out by "one of their own" because of the obvious risks to the Great Plan of Novus Ordo Seclorum. Same goes for these alleged "terrorist" sleeper cells that supposedly exist all over the world. They must be controlled and regulated... just like the rest of us.

Never underestimate the extent of the contempt your government holds you in :wink:

everyone mkaes some good points,
YES, W is the #1 recruitment tool for all of Islam right now, they have to turn them away.

Al Q has time on their side they dont have to do anything, in order to be effective, they can wait until everyone is back in a coma again, and if any group does attack anything they will get the credit.

They could also choose an very low profile target with out senstional media coverage and be extremely effective

Well there isn't any right know! hmmm... Bush has set us up. I bet the Osama tape from October was scheduled to debut in October even though he got it in February of 2004. Bush and his controversy.

Are you really suprised though?

Not at all.

I've actually seen "Terror Alert Level Elevated" messages several times after the election. And I barely watch cable news channels...

Well those first two points of not divergent, they work hand in hand, and all it does is spell big problems. Yes, W makes it easy to create some sort of sympathy and recruitment. Its not like anyone in Iraq liked Saddam, now they don't love him, but they hate him less than the new American kid on the block. That means Al Quaeda can just sit back and groom the new support, and yes, use it a decade from now.

The problem is still about how to cut off the in coming trickle of human support and sympathy. How does this fit into the terrorist alerts? Well it has to do with winning the war of ideas. Ultimately no country erects a political system (in this case democratic elections) through shear fire power. They may start that way, but four years, or ten years from now, its going to be the Iraqis that need to have culturally and psychologically bought into the new system. They're not going to do that if we dirty the fundamental concepts of what we're trying to spread ourselves. Its the do as I say, not as I do, method. It fails. If we want to talk about a government that doesn't bully its citizens, than we need to deal with the current administrations' raw manipulation of American sentiment and insecurity after 9/11.