We've had a number of discussions here at Winds of Change re: justification for the recent elevated terror alerts in NY, NJ and DC.
I don't want to take sides on the political issues here, although I've said (and still think) that the reflexive cries of 'political motive' struck me as both unproven and imprudent (at least insofar as they occurred so very quickly and loudly).
I don't believe that the Bush or any other administration should be given a totally free ride in an election year.
But those who demand proof of sensitive intelligence issues must also take responsibility for the side effects of those demands, especially when made with the partisan poison we saw last week. For there are indeed costs to openness, just as there are costs to never holding the administration to account.
Today we see the cost of last week's strident accusations and the attempts of the Bush administration to give sufficient information to motivate people to take the alert seriously. A very useful source of intelligence, a senior Al Qaeda figure who was turned and was providing deep insight into the Al Qaeda network and their plans, is no longer of any use because his cover was blown.
I'm not assigning fault here. But this is a deep loss ... it is not easy to turn a senior member of the terror networks. I am deeply saddened by the divisions in our country right now and by the toll they are taking.
I wish I could believe that Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or indeed large segments of the U.S. Democratic Party itself actually gave a damn about this.
I wish I could believe in the tooth fairy, too.
One possible justification for this action by the NYT is that the US wanted the name leaked since doing so could severely disrupt AQ communications and operational tempo. Until they send a series of dummy messages through their networks they have absolutely no idea who has been compromised and/or put under surveillance.
Because he was a crypto geek they have to assume that all the systems he managed have been blown and that we can now retroactively decrypt anything they sent off of those 'pads.' They will not be happy campers about that development.
It might even be enough to force them to put potential attack(s) on hold, while we managed to enough info before his cover was [intentionally] blown to confirm other valuable-but-shakier intel.
Bart makes a good point. In addition, the remaining leadership has to start worrying about who else may have turned. I like the idea that everytime one of these slimeballs sits down with a contact to buy missles, they have to worry whether it's an enemy agent. Who knows? If we feed the paranoia enough, they might just start offing each other and save us the trouble.
It's also possible that we got all the info we were gonna get out of him already. His jihad-buddies might have already found out he was ratting on them.
You can't deal with the barbarians at the gates until you have dealt with the fifth column inside.
hmm. bad.
btw, I don't think it's online, but the latest issue of the Atlantic has an amazing article about Ayman Zawahiri's hard drive.
It will only be temporary, they only need to change their keys.
Praktike,
Here it is: Inside al Qaeda's Hard Drive. Indeed, it is really an incredible must read story. It gives insight in the everyday squabbles within the organization, justification for suicide attacks, the tense relationship between bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and -- baby pictures.
Today we see the cost of last week's strident accusations and the attempts of the Bush administration to give sufficient information to motivate people to take the alert seriously. A very useful source of intelligence, a senior Al Qaeda figure who was turned and was providing deep insight into the Al Qaeda network and their plans, is no longer of any use because his cover was blown.
Wait a minute.
Are you seriously suggesting that if the Bush administration outed Noor to provide justification for the heightened alert status, the responsibility for this falls on the people who questioned their political motives? Because that's what it sounds like. You make a lot of equivocal and centrist-sounding statements about not giving the administration a free pass, but when you distill it down the meat of your post is "think twice before demanding justifications from your government, because they might decide to burn a valuable intel source in order to give it to you."
In what world does the responsibility for this fall on the shoulders of anyone but the people who decided they had to out Noor to take the political heat off themselves?
Why do you assume that Khan was identified in order to take political heat off of the Bush administration?
It is equally possible that it was done because officials genuinely believe there is a serious threat and the charges of political motive were diluting that threat in the minds of the public.
It's precisely your hidden assumption, Catsy, - ie. that this is all about politics rather than about a serious threat our country faces - that disturbs me greatly.
The automatic assumption that everything should be viewed first and foremost in terms of politcal advantage makes it impossible for our country to consider and debate the difficult tradeoffs we need to make in the face of what will probably be a decade or more of instability around us.
I don't care WHO does the politicizing -- it is pernicious.
jAs to the charge that I am thinly hiding my political bias, no one (including my husband) knows how I will vote in November. If I seem to be giving the Bush administration a break more than the Kerry camp, it is because I am deeply aware of the difficulty they face: they must work to protect this country while also being under political attack.
The attackers do not appear to have absorbed or accepted any responsibility for the impact of their actions on the country's security. Those in office -- not matter what one thinks of their policies -- do not have that luxury.
Why do you assume that Khan was identified in order to take political heat off of the Bush administration?
That was not my assumption, but rather yours--and I was responding to it. Consider the point you are trying to make: people questioned the Bush administration's motives for the terror alerts, and must accept "responsibility for the impact of their actions on the country's security". You draw a cause and effect relationship between the demands for justification and the outing of Noor. But the implicit corollary of that cause and effect relationship is that the outing of Noor was a /response/ to those demands for justification.
That is, by definition, outing him to take the political heat off. So if there is an assumption in this discussion you're uncomfortable with, I must suggest that you excise it from the argument you put forth.
Personally? I don't know why Noor was outed. Perhaps keeping his identity secret was no longer of value--or that value was outweighed by the strategic value of making him known. Perhaps the story has been misreported, and US officials had nothing to do with it; the leak originated only with the Pakistanis. Perhaps it was someone on the ground making a judgment call that overstepped their authority, or a loose set of lips. At this point, we don't have enough information.
But your post makes two assumptions: that outing Noor was damaging to our national security, and that it was done by the Bush administration in response--direct or otherwise--to those who demanded that they justify their terror alerts. I am pointing out to you the logical conclusion of those assumptions: that the Bush administration outed Noor to shut their critics up.
Regardless of what you think of Bush or his critics, that is not a decision that reflects well on the administration.
the implicit corollary of that cause and effect relationship is that the outing of Noor was a /response/ to those demands for justification.
That is, by definition, outing him to take the political heat off.
False logic, Catsy.
Step back and consider the decision any administration would need to make when it receives very specific info about a threat - but not info that is so specific that it includes the time of attack.
If that administration does not give some warning to the public, it is extremely derelict in its duty. Moreover, the warning is intended to motivate people to be particularly vigilant and to explain the need for visible countermeasures (which would raise comment in any case if done without a stated reason).
Unless you intend only to demonize the administration members, unless you insist they are incapable of any responsible care for the country as a while, this is an important motivation for issuing a public warning.
Okay, but then how much information should the warning include? Ideally, you would want the public to have all the info so that they can see why you are so concerned.
But to release all the info you have would badly compromise ongoing counterterror and surveillance operations ... an unacceptable price to pay, because the threatened attack is only one possible move in a long conflict. Moreover, the source of the threat is a small group of people who are hard to penetrate. So exposing intel sources and methods would be particularly costly in this case.
The result? A very difficult balancing act, a compromise that will never be optimal because these two objectives are inherently in tension with one another.
Now add a 3rd factor: harshly partisan attacks on the administration which immediately call their motives into question when the warning is first given. Not after reviewing the intel in question, or after opposition party leaders in the key committees have reviewed it, but immediately.
Moreover, these attacks are sustained over time and are given high prominence in national media -- so much prominence, in fact, that it means people no longer respond to the warning in ways that might help prevent the terror attack.
And that creates a strong incentive to push that compromise a little, to release a little more info, in the attempt to get people to see that the threat is real.
Now, it is also the case that the administration in power will want to win in November. But note that any administration would find itself balancing the two objectives I suggested, even if it were not eligible to be re-elected.
On the other hand, the partisans claiming political motive do not have sworn duties to defend the country. In fact, they have no restraints on their actions because they are not trying to balance two difficult objectives based on the intel we've gathered.
Instead, they appear to have only one, third objective in mind: to defeat the administration in the elections later this year. No matter what happens with regard to either the terror threat or to our intel penetration of the terror networks, these attackers wash their hands of any responsibility for those outcomes.
In other words, they hit and run with impunity and without assuming responsibility for the consequences.
I am unwilling to allow that to go unchallenged. It is time for those who engage in corrosive polemic (as opposed to principled and energetic debate) to be confronted.
And I say that (as I've mentioned before) as someone who for nearly 30 years was a registered Democrat who has voted mostly for Dem candidates during my adult life.
One reason I no longer identify with any party is precisely the increased volume and the damage done by this sort of partisanship over the last decade ... by partisans on both sides.
To be or not to be / To know or not to know
Whether political motives were involved or not in the declaring a heightened alert has little to do with the facts of why the alert was given. This is an inane argument that should be stamped out on either side of the fence.
Consider this for a minute.
1) We all know the federal government regardless of any administration can not be responsible for the security of citizens in the work place. I think we would all agree security in the work place is an owner / worker issue to be ironed out.
2) We all know the federal government regardless of any administration can not be responsible for municipal safety. This job falls on the shoulders of our locally elected officials. Police / first response units / fire and mayors.
3) Direct lines of communication from the federal government to the local municipality are inadequate or non-extent. Direct lines of communication to the municipal level from a state government are more robust but probably just as inadequate than that on a federal level.
So how does the information get relayed in a timely manner.
1) The federal government calls the owners of said buildings and says BTW we have discovered that your building is at high risk for potential terrorist threat. This seems unlikely.
2) The federal government calls the municipal government and says BTW we have discovered that a building in your city is at high risk for potential terrorist threat.
3) The federal government calls the state government (governor) and says BTW we have discovered that a building in your state municipality of Neighborhood is at high risk for a potential terrorist threat.
Reasoning dictates that all parties from federal to state to municipal to citizen must be informed. Reasoning also dictates that the roles each play in security are on a different scale and are best handled at different levels of the government structure.
Given the information flow Federal to State to Municipality it is highly likely that any kind of secrecy would be compromised simply because of the levels of involvement. The only kept secret is one not told.
The issue here is communication. Regardless of political pandering (blowing smoke) the reasons for a heightened alert must be relayed to the populace in general. Any administration has no other option than to justify the reasons for such an alert.
This brings us to the question of whether or not a valuable resource was compromised and is totally worthless because of revealing safety concerns to the public at large. Some one has to make the decision as to whether our lives are more important than the secrecy of the source. I’ll err on the side of our lives every time regardless of public perception concerning political pandering.
False logic, Catsy.
So you say. I disagree. How is it false? You keep insisting--or implying--that the outing of Noor was a response to Bush's critics. You held it up as an example of the damage that can be done by those who "hit and run with impunity and without assuming responsibility for the consequences". If Noor's outing was a response by the administration to this criticism, then you /are/ describing a cause and effect relationship. Only now have you mentioned another possible side effect: that people will take the terror warnings less seriously because Bush's critics accused him of using them politically. Personally, I don't see that being a significant effect; the alert system is already a running joke to most Americans, and that's nobody's fault in specific.
I do actually agree with a number of the points you're trying to make. I realize the administration is in a difficult position. If I seem disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt over their motives for the timing of terror alerts, it is because they have demonstrated in the past a willingness to put politics ahead of prudent policy. It is a reasonable suspicion, and I believe I demonstrated above that I am not /assuming/ politics in Noor's outing. But of your broader points about the administration's responsibilities and political civility, I concur.
Catsy
“Personally, I don't see that being a significant effect; the alert system is already a running joke to most Americans, and that's nobody's fault in specific.”
I for one don’t see it as a joke. I for one am also at a loss of what else we can possibly come up with that would be more effective.
I think we can all agree there is some dissention concerning the warning policies and their effectiveness. I for one would also like to hear about other options and why in your opinion most Americans consider this a running joke. I have some reasons I could offer on my own but I’m curious as to whether they run in tandem with others and their lines of thought.
Robin says:
Why do you assume that Khan was identified in order to take political heat off of the Bush administration?
It is equally possible that it was done because officials genuinely believe there is a serious threat and the charges of political motive were diluting that threat in the minds of the public.
Uh, isn't the decision to out Kahn a necessary move to protect the American public from this possible attack because of the political attacks of the Democrats?
Doesn't that make the response political where the original warning was not? In other words it was made political by people who are delusional about our current war time situation.
The Dems are in process of total melt down.
Winter Soldier. Kerry in unauthorised talks with the enemy. War crimes.
The Demented to don't understand the American Middle. Or else they do and are afraid of losing their base if they move too close to the middle.
Let me see if I can get it right this time:
Robin says:
Why do you assume that Khan was identified in order to take political heat off of the Bush administration?
It is equally possible that it was done because officials genuinely believe there is a serious threat and the charges of political motive were diluting that threat in the minds of the public.
Uh, isn't the decision to out Kahn a necessary move to protect the American public from this possible attack because of the political attacks of the Democrats?
Doesn't that make the response political where the original warning was not? In other words it was made political by people who are delusional about our current war time situation.
The Dems are in process of total melt down.
Winter Soldier. Kerry in unauthorised talks with the enemy. War crimes.
The Dementedocrats don't understand the American Middle. Or else they do and are afraid of losing their base if they move too close to the middle.
Joe,
I got the tags right but it seems that paragraph breaks cancel the italics tag. Is that standard HTML? Or have I become used to non-standard versions?
Okay, let me see if I have this right.
The administration lets out the name of a source who's working within Al Qaeda, in order to provide more justification for announcing a terror alert. (We're assuming this was an offical leak; if this is the Times' fault, they were obviously wrong and deserve whatever they get.) But it's not their fault - it's those disloyal Democrats who don't automatically believe them and made them do it.
Are you KIDDING me?!?
1) Remember personal responsibility? Somebody made the decision that justifying the alert was more important than protecting the soutce. Whoever made that decision - IT'S ON THEM. Now, I'm not saying it couldn't have been the right decision, although I'm doubtful it was. But nobody had a gun to their head - the responsibility is on their shoulders.
1a) Now that this is out (which shouldn't be a huge surprise - why would the Pakistanis keep their mouth shut about it?), it's going to make the government look bad, and increase the suspicion that politics, not counter-terrorism is their first priority. And that should have been factored into the decision-making process as well, which makes it even less likely that this was the right call.
2) If a large portion of the American public doesn't trust the administration, and downplays the terror alerts, whose fault is that? Yes, some of it is simply reflexively hostility to Bush and to America excercising power overseas. But the administration has done several things wrong, that make it harder to trust in its sincerity.
a) It's hard to say who politicized the war on terror first. (I tend to point it to the '02 elections, but that's not my point.) But it's not unfair to say the administration has used it as a political issue.
b) Tora Bora. Apparently in an attempt to minimize American casualties, too much of the work was left to Afghan troops, and the job wasn't finished.
c) Whatever the ultimate reason for invading Iraq was, the administation hung it on an issue (WMD) which it does not now appear to have been justified. This may not be blameworthy, but it doesn't look good.
d) Apparently, the administration vastly underestimated the amount of post-war resistance we'd face in Iraq. At the very least, they undersold it to the American public. They were either lying or incompetent, but neither one makes we want to trust them.
e) General heavy-handedness. Sure, some of it's media spin, but this administration almost always seems to come across as "Stop asking questions and do what we tell you." They act offended that anyone has the effrontery to think their motives are less than 100% pure.
I could do more, but my point is this. The administration has brought a significant portion of the mistrust on itself, and if you don't see that, you're fooling yourself. You may not see these as sufficient reasons not to trust Bush, but is it that unreasonable that other people do?
3) It doesn't really matter whose fault it is that a lot of people don't trust the administration. That's a fact, and it has to be dealt with. If the administration can't get people to take terror alerts seriously, then something has to change. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do know that just attacking the Democrats is not it.
I got the tags right but it seems that paragraph breaks cancel the italics tag. Is that standard HTML? Or have I become used to non-standard versions?
No, standard HTML behavior is to apply italics until the tag is closed. Some message board and blog software packages force a closing tag at the end of paragraphs to protect against someone forgetting to put one. The fix is easy--just italicize each paragraph.
And I'll thank you to keep a civil tone. I'm sure the "Dementedocrats" line plays well at the Free Republic, but it contributes nothing to the discussion.
I think we can all agree there is some dissention concerning the warning policies and their effectiveness. I for one would also like to hear about other options and why in your opinion most Americans consider this a running joke. I have some reasons I could offer on my own but I’m curious as to whether they run in tandem with others and their lines of thought.
I'm afraid it's been quite a while since I read the poll, so I don't have a cite handy--although I made an effort to go look for it. It was taken this year and demonstrated, in short, that a majority of Americans don't take the alert level system seriously.
Of couse, I realize many people don't take /polls/ seriously--but the results did track pretty well with my anecdotal experiences in discussing it with people on both sides of the aisle. I get a strong consensus that the alert levels convey little or no useful information, and that the color coding is more useful as fodder for the Daily Show. Why, for instance, do we have "Green" and "Blue" alert levels when it is absurd to think that we will ever use these levels until Islamic terrorism has been so purged from the world that there is no longer a need for the alert system at all?
And for those who /do/ take it seriously? It is difficult for a well-ordered military to maintain a state of high readiness, anticipating conflict, for too long. Why, then, do we suppose the average American will fare much better, when they come to regard a "high" or "elevated" alert level as the normal status quo? They will do what most people would do in such a situation: get used to it.
I would argue that already the higher alert levels have lost their desired effect--some of this due to human nature, and some due to the conflicting messages being sent out by the administration. We are told to increase our vigilance and to take specific actions, but most of these actions are things responsible citizens should do /anytime/, and the few remaining have only the most arbitrary connection to the level of threat. Pick ten people off the street and I'll bet you not one of them can name what they're supposed to be doing at the current alert level--and not many will even know what it is. Meanwhile, at orange alert we're told that we're in mortal peril and should go about our lives as normal. This does not inspire one to take the alert level, or the threat, seriously. I don't see how the alert levels contribute anything not better served by /describing/ the threat to us and asking us to take necessary precautions.
The one effect we can be sure the system has: every time the national alert level is raised, it is costing cities money they can ill-afford to be spending. Money which I believe would be better spent improving our security in other ways, such as hiring additional police and emergency personnel, increasing inspections of incoming shipping, and investing in smarter security measures at our airports.
My apologies for the lengthy post.
Catsy
I agree with some of the points you bring forward but I disagree on the military side of house. They are trained specifically for alert level situations and deal with it on a daily basis. As you say it becomes the norm for them and this is exactly what is required of them.
As for the general populace that in and of itself is different matter all together. Here is my take on what I consider one of the sticky issues which is first response, fire and police support.
1) If I live in Muleshoe Texas population 4,530 which has ample first response, police and fire support why should my tax dollars subsidize New York City population 7,322,564 issues when it comes to supplying ample support for these services? Muleshoe didn’t ask for you’re money but now you’re asking Muleshoe for theirs. Doesn’t make one bit of sense to those folks they don’t have a vested interest in NYC affairs and nor should they.
2) If I live in Springfield Illinois population 112,000 and see little if any value concerning a threat to terrorize the fine citizens of this city why would I be interested in an orange threat that has nothing to do with me?
These are local and to some extent state issues not federal. I’ll give some leeway concerning international ports of entry and national services such as rail but that’s about it.
So why the national terror alert? I’m sure everyone recalls the obnoxious 30second to 1 minute noises we all endured in the middle of our radio shows. Did anyone know what it was really for other than wait until the obnoxious noise is over and listen for further instructions? Probably not and this is what this national alert level has come to. The only response I can give to the necessity for a national terror alert is that the media would eat up and blow out of proportion any alert anywhere in the US providing all citizens more of a disservice than a public service.
I don’t live in any of the cities mentioned but I’ve certainly traveled enough to understand some of the issues smaller communities face and they are not unlike some of the other issues major cities face. Somehow though these smaller communities seem to handle things very well on their own.
Any administration will have a difficult time trying to cope with national interests verses local interests because the tendons between the two are few and limited in scope. They are more apples to oranges instead of oranges to oranges and our society demands they stay that way.
PS - no apologies necessary for a lengthy post. People want to read and understand your point of view.
Amusingly, the reason it costs more is that when the alerts go up, the cities have more police on duty, more emergency personnel on duty, and perform more inspections at points-of-entry.
If you don't have the money to permanently upgrade security, the next level is upgrading at times that seem most likely to be a problem. A nudge from the Feds 'now might be a good time' seems inherently useful. It isn't useful in the slightest to a convenience store owner in Nome - it isn't meant to be.
1) Remember personal responsibility? Somebody made the decision that justifying the alert was more important than protecting the soutce. Whoever made that decision - IT'S ON THEM. Now, I'm not saying it couldn't have been the right decision, although I'm doubtful it was. But nobody had a gun to their head - the responsibility is on their shoulders.
FIrst, you would have to determine whether this story (sourced from Reuters by info from Pakistani ISI folks) is true or not. Pakistan has been blaring quite loudly how they are helping the WOT by catching this guy. It is only in this Reuters story (and every other story about it has been a reprint of this Reuters story) that I have seen it described as a blown cover.
Also, since the original was published, Reuters changed the reporting from officials "revealed" to officials "confirmed." The name was published in the NYT first.
So its the NYT that blew the cover, if indeed a cover was blown at all.
First off, here's the NY Times article that started all this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02intel.html
(Sorry, I never remember how to put the link tags on.)
And reading that, it does look like the name came from Pakistan, not the government. OTOH, it also appears that the Times reporters asked somebody "Is this the guy?" and they no-commented, so this probably wasn't blindsiding anyone. (And for all we know, they could have confirmed it off the record.) Could they have prevented the Times from releasing the name? Who knows?
In any case, if it wasn't a government leak, then fine, I'm not hanging any responibility on them. But if that's the case, the whole point of the original post - that this had to be released because of Democrats questioning the validity of the alert - is moot as well.
Al
"If you don't have the money to permanently upgrade security, the next level is upgrading at times that seem most likely to be a problem. A nudge from the Feds 'now might be a good time' seems inherently useful. It isn't useful in the slightest to a convenience store owner in Nome - it isn't meant to be."
Well put Al but instead of the next level I see it as a step down. You can't have a Rolls Royce at Volkswagon prices which seems to be what everyone wants.
Most are concerned about what they will give up in social benefits be it monetary or freedom of choice. They don't see the issue of security as an elective issue in the same manner they see the issues of a welfare state. Which in my opinion is preceisely why California got into financial trouble.
Great discussion, guys. Keep it up.
As I mentioned above, I have to skip out of the blogosphere for a few months. It's a move I've been considering for a little while, but recent events made the decision for me, rather abruptly.
I hope that WOC will continue to be a place where people can discuss contentious issues with some civility and seriousness.
Best of luck to y'all ....
"I wish I could believe that Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or indeed large segments of the U.S. Democratic Party itself actually gave a damn about this."
Unsurprising as it is that I would utterly disagree, I think this is dreadfully uncalled for Joe. You're saying that two sitting U.S. Senators, a former Governor, and much of the country, simply don't care about actually protecting us from terrorism, and possibly blowing the cover of a vital intelligence source (which, whatever the truth of what's happened here, is unlikely to turn out to have been done by a Democrat). That's in the realm of saying that such folks (myself, included, I have to assume by inference and identification) are, essentially, traitors.
There's just no call for this sort of thing; it's sheer Michael Mooreism, I'm afraid, no different from accusations that Bush invaded two countries solely (or largely) to get oil resources and profits for his friends. It's simply absurd. (It's also not a good advertisement for WoC being "centrist.")
paragraph breaks cancel the italics tag. Is that standard HTML?
Yes. A paragraph in HTML is a block element, and non-block elements (like italics) can't contain a block or extend beyond their enclosing block. (Some browsers don't handle this properly and will let italics keep on going right on down the page until an explicit close tag is encountered. But an end to the enclosing block implicitly closes the <i> tag.)
I think USMC has the right idea about the terror alert system. The problem I see is that the symbolism of the alert system says "there's a generally higher/lower risk of attacks during this period", but that's not actually what's being said; the level is raised when we have reason to expect a specific attack or set of attacks during a particular time.
Now, we may or may not know the "where" of a suspected attack, although I'm guessing that this is usually known at least down to the city. As well, any attack might be accompanied by more minor ones at the same time in different locations. And (as with the 9/11 attacks) an attack might be coordinated from locations other than the intended target (e.g. Logan Airport, Florida...). So it isn't as though people outside the targeted location shouldn't keep their eyes open.
I think the real problem with the alerts is that no one seems to know what (if anything) they're supposed to do in response to an increased threat level. More geographic specificity might help here. So might "We are alerting police and fire departments, and asking people in the following locations to look out for unusual things; everyone else can ignore this." As it is, the common response to the orange alert warning is "OK, and....? What am I supposed to be doing exactly?"
You guys are pretending that outing the agent was part of a dialog between liberals and Bush:
Liberals: These terror alerts make no sense, because there never was any threat in the first place.
Bush: Yes, there is too a threat. Gosh, I hate to do this... but see this classified info? See, there really is a threat.
Liberals: Oh! There was a threat after all! We're sorry, we'll pay closer attention to those terror alerts now.
Bush: Now don't you feel bad that you made me out that agent?
But that's pure fantasy. The real dialog went like this:
Liberals: These terror alerts make no sense, because they're not actionable. I can't imagine what purpose they serve... except, and this is a bit cynical, but maybe you're using them to trigger a rally around the flag.
Bush: No, really, there are lots of threats, I'm just telling you about them. Here, see this classified info? This proves that there are real threats.
Liberals: I never said there wasn't a threat. I'm sure you have threat warnings crossing your desk every day. The problem is that the alerts you give us aren't actionable, and that therefore, they couldn't possibly serve any purpose but to trigger a rally around the flag.
Bush: Don't you feel bad that you made me out that agent?
Liberals: I have no idea why you outed that agent, it only proved that there are threats, which I already knew. It didn't convince me that the alerts were actionable, and therefore, it didn't convince me that they serve a purpose other than your political gain.
In short, Bush outed the agent for no real purpose at all.
Well, it seems likely, based on the discussion above, that the agent was outed by a Pakistani source. This would render a fair amount of the breast-beating moot, if true.
Gary,
Get down off the cross--Andrew Sullivan won't thank you for keeping his spot warm. No, I don't think Kerry (for one) is serious about fighting the WoT. This is a far cry from labelling him (or, for God's sake, YOU) a "traitor."
Josh,
What exactly is the distinction between "actionable/non-actionable" threats? Does it have to do with specificity? Or recommended courses of action?
Sam: an "actionable" warning would be anything that tells me to take an action, which I actually am capable of taking. For example, a warning that says "don't go to the mall on Thursday" is actionable. A warning that says "be more alert" isn't actionable, because I'm already as alert as I can be.
Josh,
You're telling me that you walk around every day at your most heightened state of alertness, looking for potential terrorist activity? Well, I can't very well dispute that, not being you.
However, I cannot believe this is generally true, even of those who live in NYC or D.C. Assuming that most civilians are not, in fact, on constant hair-trigger alert would completely undercut your theory that "be more alert" is a non-actionable warning.
Gary
‘You're saying that two sitting U.S. Senators, a former Governor, and much of the country, simply don't care about actually protecting us from terrorism, and possibly blowing the cover of a vital intelligence source (which, whatever the truth of what's happened here, is unlikely to turn out to have been done by a Democrat). That's in the realm of saying that such folks (myself, included, I have to assume by inference and identification) are, essentially, traitors.’
I’ve tried to look at the issue with a discerning eye but it seems the public will not be happy until they can point fingers at government officials to obtain some sort of closure. This attitude I think is the wrong way to look at the issue. Placing blame might provide some sort of emotional well being but it wont provide or enhance security measures.
That said I wouldn’t put the sentiment or anger directed on any particular party of federal government. After reading the 9/11 and Intelligence reports (which I’m sure most of the populace in the nation has not done) our entire legislative branch as well as our intelligence sectors were asleep at the wheel. It could be argued the intelligence branch was not asleep since they certainly had a lot of information that could of should of would of been tied together under different circumstances. The assessments clearly show that there is ample blame to go around regardless of party. The feelings of betrayal are more directed towards everyone in the federal governments trough not just a particular party.
A lot of Americans are taking the easy way out in placing blame on an entire party because of actions by those affiliated with a party. Dean threw it out. Dean is a democrat. Ergo all democrats think Dean is right. This is a terrible concept and the wrong way to think. I for one don’t believe Dean is the spokesman for the democratic party. Kerry is the spokesman for the democratic party at the moment. (Or is he?) My understanding is Kerry was briefed prior to the issuance of the alert. Dr. Rice made this point clear in an interview after the allegations were made. As far as I know Kerry is still on the senate intelligence committee (could be wrong here I haven‘t checked). As far as some one making the decision goes. The decision no doubt was made by consensus with a spokesman to deliver the news. Who / whom are the participants of this consensus? If Kerry had an issue with it then he should have spoken up. Keep in mind silence is compliance. Kerry could of should of would of stopped this inane thought train from roaring down the track by simply stating he believed or did not believe the issued alert was warranted. He didn’t do it. Why? Could it be there is no cohesion in the democratic party? This is where the political pandering starts.
PS - Senate Intelligence Committee
As per my previous post.
"I know Kerry is still on the senate intelligence committee (could be wrong here I haven‘t checked)."
Kerry is no longer on the senate intelligence committee however John Edwards still remains as a memeber of the senate intelligence committee.
> Assuming that most civilians are not, in fact, on constant hair-trigger alert would completely undercut your theory that "be more alert" is a non-actionable warning.
The question I care about is whether Bush has an excuse for outing an agent. Robin's thesis is that he does have an excuse: liberals demanded proof (of something unspecified). But that's just false. What liberals demanded was: "When I see the color level change, what am I supposed to do? What sort of action am I supposed to take?" The answer that Bush gave us, the name of a double agent, was a complete non-sequitur in response to that question. Bush cannot use "we demanded the information" as an excuse, because that's not the information we demanded.
Again, in order to be upset about this "outing," one has to know that there was an outing. This is still far from clear. Today in the NYT, they wrote this:
A report by Reuters in Pakistan said Mr. Khan had been secretly funneling information about Al Qaeda to Pakistani authorities and that his arrest and subsequent identification in news accounts may have cost the United States a valuable source.
American officials contacted on Saturday would not confirm whether Mr. Khan was a mole or double agent. They said his arrest had led to intelligence gains of enormous value in uncovering the surveillance operation in the United States.
So, again, the only source that this is some sort of problem is from Reuters, sourced from Pakistani ISI (which has reason to hate Bush because he forced a purge of the radicals there and busted up Abdul Q Khan's nuclear black market - remember their story about how we were forcing them to capture bin Laden in late July?)
But I have yet to see any other story where Pakistan is upset at this, or that the UK is upset, central tenets of the Reuters story.
And Josh, your argument is just false. Liberals argued not that they were not being prepared for what to do by this latest alert, but rather that it was completely political - i.e., not a real threat at all.
I think the news today blows all that out of the water - Time has the details, posted on Drudge.
"Liberals argued ... that it was completely political - i.e., not a real threat"
That is illogical. A real threat can be used for political purposes. To see how, read my first two posts.
jaed
'As it is, the common response to the orange alert warning is "OK, and....? What am I supposed to be doing exactly?"'
Catsy pointed out exactly what we are supposed to be doing.
Citizen Guidance on the Homeland Security Advisory System
My first inclination concerning Americans claiming ignorance it to educate them. How do we do this? It can certainly start with the media explaining what we should be doing and where to find out more information. This to my knowledge has not been done and I would surmise the reason why is because there's no benefit to the news media for doing so. These explanations should be just as repetitive as female hygiene and male sexual enhancement products.
"No, I don't think Kerry (for one) is serious about fighting the WoT."
That's a fair opinion, and a fair way to state it. There's a huge rhetorical difference between saying that generalized statement, which is debatable, and for which examples can be put forth for such debate, and specifically declaring that Kerry, Edwards, and "large segments of the U.S. Democratic Party" don't "[give] a damn about" blowing the cover of someone undercover in al Qaeda. The latter specifically impugns in a way which your formulation does not.
That is illogical. A real threat can be used for political purposes. To see how, read my first two posts.
Well, first of all, you would have to demonstrate a) that Noor was "outed," and that b) Bush did the outing.
We have one source for the notion that it was an outing, a wire service notoriously anti-American in its reporting and sources who have reason to harm President Bush. But assume that the article is true on its face. Then you have to proove that Bush (or the administration) did the outing. The NYT got the name and the US confirmed it. Now what advantage, actually, would the US gain in this credibility of the alert thing by having a name attached to the arrest? Was Mohammed Khan (I bet 10% of the Pakistani population bears that name) a name that was going to turn the tide on that? Was that a known entity in the US, someone on our most wanted list?
No. So you would have to ask who benefits in the name getting out?
To me, all roads lead to Pakistan on that. The radicals in the ISI would have reason to get the name out and to blame that release on the US.
Well, apparently on CNN today, Wolf Blitzer quoted Condi Rice as admitting that the US let the name out on background. (See here:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004473.php) I didn't see it myself, but the description sounds pretty cut-and-dried.
Further update here.
I'm still stunned that the logic of seven-year-olds -- He made me do it, mommy! -- might be accepted by anyone, but there are no limits to partisan prejudice (it's always the fault of those Horrible Other Guys Who Are So Bad And Horrible). I thought most of us believed in taking reponsibility for our own actions.