PDA

View Full Version : Last weeks orange alert



highsea
08-07-2004, 01:24 PM
Last week when Ridge upgraded the threat level for New York's financial institutions, the Dems went into an uproar, accusing the administration of using the alert to take away attention from the DNC Convention.

In response to the accusations, the administration was forced to identify the recent sources of intel were from a mole within al-qaeda.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5902856&pag eNumber=0

Authorities in the UK and Pakistan rushed to round up al-qaeda operatives that had been compromised by the mole, and spirit the mole (Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan) into hiding. As a result, a valuable asset within al-qaeda is no longer available to us.

This demonstrates the catch-22 situation the administration is in. Even though Ridge has repeatedly stated that the DHS does not play politics with the alerts, the Dems and the media are perfectly willing to do that very thing in an attempt to discredit the administration.

Considering the difficulty involved in infiltrating al-qaeda, I consider this a disaster, and place the responsibility for this squarely on the shoulders of the Dems, Dean, and the media. Not only were lives put at risk during the roundup of al-qaeda suspects (because of the rushed nature of the arrests), but losing such a valuable source of intel within al-qaeda may have costly consequences for us in the future.

-CM

Qtec
08-07-2004, 09:59 PM
Sorry CM but this doesnt make sense.

The Orange alert doesnt make sense either.

Most terrorists target civilians, not Govt institutions. Look what happened in Northern Ireland.

Q

Ross
08-07-2004, 11:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Last week when Ridge upgraded the threat level for New York's financial institutions, the Dems went into an uproar, accusing the administration of using the alert to take away attention from the DNC Convention.

In response to the accusations, the administration was forced to identify the recent sources of intel were from a mole within al-qaeda.
<font color="blue">Why were they forced? Because some Democrats are suspicious of the timing? So when the Republicans are criticized they have to roll over and give up sensitive info? Get over it. The out-of-office party is always going to critisize the incumbents. It comes with the territory.

And if this indeed compromised the US intelligence operation, the blame should go to the Republican administration officials who gave enough info to identify the guy. (Interestingly, Clinton on Jay Leno said that he wasn't suspicious of the timing.)

That's why the Dems can't win with people who are biased against them. If they were in power and leaked the info on the guy they would be criticized as weak on defense and as wimps. If they aren't in power, it's their fault anyway for "forcing" the Repubs to roll over. Either way, they are the bad guys.
</font color>
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&amp;storyID=5902856&amp;pag eNumber=0

Authorities in the UK and Pakistan rushed to round up al-qaeda operatives that had been compromised by the mole, and spirit the mole (Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan) into hiding. As a result, a valuable asset within al-qaeda is no longer available to us.

This demonstrates the catch-22 situation the administration is in. Even though Ridge has repeatedly stated that the DHS does not play politics with the alerts, the Dems and the media are perfectly willing to do that very thing in an attempt to discredit the administration.

Considering the difficulty involved in infiltrating al-qaeda, I consider this a disaster, and place the responsibility for this squarely on the shoulders of the Dems, Dean, and the media. Not only were lives put at risk during the roundup of al-qaeda suspects (because of the rushed nature of the arrests), but losing such a valuable source of intel within al-qaeda may have costly consequences for us in the future.

-CM

<hr /></blockquote>

highsea
08-08-2004, 11:36 AM
I agree with you that the alerts don't make sense. Counter-terrorism operations cannot be effectively carried out in the glare of the camera. We need to change the way we handle the intel. We should quietly increase security around these sites when the intel suggests they may be a target.

If you doubt the targets, there isn't much I can say to you. We know that the buildings were scouted out, photographed in detail, and that detailed plans were made to attack them. We also know that this planning dated back at least 3 years, and was updated around the beginning of this year, suggesting that the (terrorists) operations were still ongoing.

Obviously we can't just sit back and wait for another attack. We have to increase the security in these areas, but we also need to prevent it from becoming a media/political circus in the process.

highsea
08-08-2004, 11:50 AM
Ross, I think the official who leaked the intel to the Times should be canned, and probably prosecuted. But there is no doubt in my mind that the reason he did it was to take some heat off the administration. The left was accusing the administration of playing politics with the alerts, which is something the public would not stand for.

Every mainstream news source was on this "wag the dog" story when the threat level was raised. The cable news, the Dems like Dean and the DNC talking heads were all saying the same thing. Oh! look at the timing, this is a staged alert to draw attention away from the Dems and steal the convention spotlight. Of course the DHS and the administration is going to respond to the accusations.

Ask yourself, would this have happened if the election was not so close? Dean made it a story with his "wag the dog" accusations, and the media jumped all over it. It was headline news for 3 days, and the cable news shows were hashing it out practically at the top of every hour.

Originally I thought the alerts were a good idea, but I no longer think so. Counter-terrorism ops by nature need to be clandestine, and kept completely out of the public eye. There is too much risk of tipping off the enemy, both to what we know and what we don't know.

-CM

onepocketfanatic
08-08-2004, 11:55 PM
Neither do I like politicians, nor like the media. They both slant things to suit their own agenda. The media does it to sell papers, or get you to watch their stupid programs so they generate revenue. The politicians are for the most part a bunch of self serving scum bags that say what is convenient at the time to try and get attention, as well as get reelected. In neither case do I feel that either one does what is truly good for the country, but rather does what is good for furthering their businesses and or careers.
I am one of those here in the US that is in the middle. Neither am I far left, nor far right. Instead of being a Republican, or a Democrat, I am what you might call a Skeptic. I do not believe everthing I read or hear. As an old boss of mine that escaped from Communist Poland in the trunk of a car many years ago used to say "Prove it to me. Show me, and then I will believe you. Talk is cheap".
Form what I have seen neither side has much to brag about since for the most part our officials in Federal, State, County, and City government officials are just out to further their agendas, not do what is right. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk...and that goes for the one at the top....all the way to the little fish at the bottom.
Unless I was having a particularly good day, I would not urinate down the throat of a politician or news media person if their guts were on fire /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Qtec
08-10-2004, 07:38 AM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level.

Khan is a computer expert who officials said helped Osama bin Laden communicate with his terror network




After arresting thousands of suspected Al Q members,finally one decides to co-operate and agree to work for our side.
Somebody who handles AlQs comunications could be very helpful as long as his cover is not blown.

What happens? Someone leaks his name to the press!!!!


You might think someone doesnt want OBL to be caught.

Ask yourself,how many people would have had access to his name? I would imagine[ and hope] that someone of his value[ who could possibly lead us to OBL] would be seen as an asset that should be protected and not squandered.

Q

highsea
08-10-2004, 07:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> After arresting thousands of suspected Al Q members,finally one decides to co-operate and agree to work for our side. <font color="red"> I think you're making assumptions here. I don't think you or I know who has cooperated and to what level. </font color>
Somebody who handles AlQs comunications could be very helpful as long as his cover is not blown.

What happens? Someone leaks his name to the press!!!!


You might think someone doesnt want OBL to be caught.

Ask yourself,how many people would have had access to his name? I would imagine[ and hope] that someone of his value[ who could possibly lead us to OBL] would be seen as an asset that should be protected and not squandered.

Q<hr /></blockquote>I don't know who originally gave the name to the times. I hope we find out. This was an intelligence catastrophy.

Ross
08-10-2004, 05:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> I don't know who originally gave the name to the times. I hope we find out. This was an intelligence catastrophy. <hr /></blockquote>

It's worse than that. It wasn't just a leak - administration officials gave the Times permission to publish the name. From today's USA Today:

"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it."

Qtec
08-12-2004, 11:36 AM
Last week, after The New York Times reported that Washington officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the [U.S. government's most recent] security alerts," the Bush administration broke the most hallowed rule of espionage: It revealed the name of the hitherto anonymous spy, a double agent who was actively linked to al Qaeda and was providing valuable intelligence data to the United States at the same time. (Reuters)
The uniquely positioned Pakistani man was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, a skilled computer hacker. For whatever reasons, Bush administration officials exposed him "while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities." (Reuters/Dawn, Pakistan). Khan, who was arrested last month in Lahore, had been "coaxed" by Pakistani intelligence officials into working undercover to help track down al Qaeda militants in the United Kingdom and the United States (Rediff.com) "After his capture, he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. (new Zealand Herald)

Computer data recovered from Khan showed "detailed plans and information about several U.S. and British targets, including financial centers and other public buildings." However, Khan's material was three years old. (Rediff.com) Nevertheless, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, obliquely referring to Khan and defending the administration's decision to expose him at the same time, said that "the information that there were plots under way that might relate to the pre-election period" made it "inconceivable" for the government not to warn potential terrorist targets in the United States, such as the New York Stock Exchange. <font color="red"> Ok, maybe. </font color> Similarly, Rice suggested, the Bush administration was obliged to make known the source of its timely information, which meant identifying Khan. <font color="red"> Totall BS! </font color> (CNN)

How many times can they claim incompetence as an excuse?

Fnally someone who could lead them to OBL and they blow his cover???? And for what, pre 9/11 info??

I find it strange that this matter has died in the media.

So much for the Liberal press. LOL


Q

highsea
08-12-2004, 12:07 PM
Gee whiz. More news from Pakistan. Thanks Q.

So how do you know so much about al-qaeda anyway? You keep saying this guy could've led us to OBL. Do you know something nobody else knows?

No, I didn't think so. Just another excuse to bash GW. yawn.

highsea
08-12-2004, 12:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> It wasn't just a leak - administration officials gave the Times permission to publish the name. From today's USA Today:

"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it." <hr /></blockquote>Ross, I've heard two different accounts of this. CR stated in an interview two days ago that the name was disclosed on "background", meaning it was for the reporter's info, not to be published.

Whether it was intentional or not, it's still wrong, and heads should roll. McClellan said yesterday that any further alerts will be much more vague. One thing the administration should know, is don't trust the New York Times. I hope they get the cold shoulder till after the election at least. The NYT can get the news from CNN for all I care.

-CM

Ross
08-12-2004, 02:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> It wasn't just a leak - administration officials gave the Times permission to publish the name. From today's USA Today:

"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it." <hr /></blockquote>Ross, I've heard two different accounts of this. CR stated in an interview two days ago that the name was disclosed on "background", meaning it was for the reporter's info, not to be published.

<font color="blue">Highsea, "on background" is a common term used daily by the government and others to give info to the reporter that he/she may report, and even quote verbatim, as long as the source's name is not used. This is where the "administration officials said" stories come from. "Off-the-record" is the term used when a reporter is not permitted to even use the info at all. There are several PR and media websites that explain those terms (for example http://www.lacp.com/articles/060403.htm) .

Unless Condi mispoke, she is admitting that the admin gave the NYT's the name, and did not do so "off the record." And that begs the question, why would the admin leak highly sensitive intel to a NYT's reporter, on the record or off?

In fact, if the NYT's leaked info that was truly off-the-record, you would expect outrage (and rightly so) coming from the Bush admin. Instead you have Condi (who was surely briefed before her Sunday morning interview with Blitzer) not saying that at all. Instead she defended the leak by saying you have to "strike a balance" in what info you give out. </font color>

Whether it was intentional or not, it's still wrong, and heads should roll. McClellan said yesterday that any further alerts will be much more vague. One thing the administration should know, is don't trust the New York Times. I hope they get the cold shoulder till after the election at least. The NYT can get the news from CNN for all I care.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Again, blaming the NYTimes for a Bush administration leak seems like a pretty biased evaluation. I guess you could argue that the NYT's should have realized that the admin didn't really know what it was doing when it gave them the guys name "on background." But that seems a little much to ask for a newspaper whose job is to report news, not make security decisions.

And ask yourself how mad you would be at Clinton, if it were his administration that leaked a valuable intel source's name for apparently political reasons (to mollify his critics)? My guess is that the right wing would be ready to hang him for treason! </font color>

eg8r
08-13-2004, 06:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And ask yourself how mad you would be at Clinton, if it were his administration that leaked a valuable intel source's name for apparently political reasons (to mollify his critics)? My guess is that the right wing would be ready to hang him for treason! <hr /></blockquote> In all honesty, this might have been the least treasonous thing Clinton could have been blamed for. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese is much higher.

As for the Bush administration leaking this info, it is pure stupidity. I am pretty mad. I don't know if I could get much angrier about it whether it was the Bush admin or the Clinton admin.

eg8r