Over the weekend, Howard Dean suggested that the Bush Administration's recent decision to elevate the threat alert, with specific focus on several key financial insitutions, was at least in part a political ploy.
Two news stories from late last night suggest he is way off base.
First, the information we've gathered on a specific threat. Drudge Report offers a partial transcript of what appears to be a not-for-name-attribution briefing on the nature and extent of the intelligence Al Qaeda is alleged to have collected:
There is detail now available regarding the types of security procedures at some specific buildings; the security checks that are required; the types of security personal at different posts; whether or not these individuals are armed or not; the presence of security officers at these posts at different times of the day; the types of uniforms that they wear; the number of pedestrians in the area, the number of employees in buildings; information regarding potential escape routes for perpetrators of attacks; different points of reconnaissance in order to ensure that they have the full breadth of information regarding the targets; different types of shops that are near by.
There is extensive information now available on the information they've been able to acquire regarding the other facilities in the area, whether they be religious establishments, schools, libraries, hospitals, police departments, fire departments; talks about the different access measures, as far as whether or not there's a physical desk or intercom systems; types of surveillance activities or counter-surveillance activities such as cameras; good places to go to meet employees; good places to go to acquire additional information; the types of traffic patterns that are near buildings; the different types of vehicles that in fact can enter different types of parking facilities; the incline that is used, that exists, as one enters an underground parking facility; the different types of materials that in fact should be brought into different types of vehicles and to address whether or not certain materials can, if detonated, cause, in fact, buildings to collapse; the placement of such devices and bombs to maximize the damage to the architecture of the building.
It identifies also the disadvantages of certain types of plans in terms of the possible dissipation of the force in terms of the size, the height of the building, the height of a ceiling where in fact a vehicle might in fact be detonated. It talks about different means of ingress and egress; how one can get in side buildings. It talks about the configurations of parking lots. It talks about whether or not the parking garages and facilities are close the core of the buildings and near certain offices. It talks about the different types of shops nearby that can provide cover for additional types of acquisition of information. It talks about the number of cars passing different types of targets at particular times of the day.
It talks about the many types of procedures that employees themselves have to use for access to buildings. It recommends the type of material to be used. It talks about the types of techniques. It talks about the types of trucks, vehicles, other types of means of bringing in and bringing close to the targets, explosive devices. It makes reference to the extensive detail that individuals who have been involved in this have been able to acquire from publicly available sites, from various types of information that's available, as well as the types of personal reconnaissance and surveillance and casing that goes on.
The New York Times is reporting that this information came, at least in part, as a result of the unannounced capture of an Al Qaeda communications operator a few weeks ago:
The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.
The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.
A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said "documentary evidence" found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.
One senior American intelligence official said the information was more detailed and precise than any he had seen during his 24-year career in intelligence work. A second senior American official said it had provided a new window into the methods, content and distribution of Qaeda communications.
"This, for us, is a potential treasure trove," said a third senior American official, an intelligence expert, at a briefing for reporters on Sunday afternoon.
The documentary evidence, whose contents were reported urgently to Washington on Friday afternoon, immediately elevated the significance of other intelligence information gathered in recent weeks that had already been regarded as highly troubling, senior American intelligence officials said. Much of that information had come from Qaeda detainees in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan, and some had also pointed to a possible attack on financial institutions, senior American intelligence officials said.
There has been much criticism of the CIA lately, and of the failure of the CIA and the FBI to exchange information that might identify and help prevent attacks. The transcript from Drudge appears to be a case where they have worked well together:
There was a question earlier about where this came from. Let me talk for just a moment about how we got here and we know what we know. There's been commentary in the media over time about things like chatter, about acquisition of information off the internet. This is not that kind of information. What this is a result of is the offense we have taken in this war and the disruption of this al-Qaeda adversary.
Over the course of the past three years since 9-11, we've taken out, this is CIA in concert with our law enforcement colleagues, our military colleagues, and our friends around the world, I'd estimate more than 70 percent of the al-Qaeda leadership. And what we have found is a mosaic, an understanding of this adversary that is slowly and steadily coming into focus. It's coming into focus again, not just because of chatter or because of internet information, but because we acquire information from disruptions that allows us to get behind the organization and understand exactly what they're trying to do in some respects ...
The adversary we saw and have seen since the 1990's, the adversary that conducted the operation of September 11th, put in place many plans. It's a very strategic thinking organization. The leadership of the organization, I think, it was very focused and committed to what they were doing. What you're seeing in some cases is the remnants of what that leadership tried to set up years ago, and what you're seeing in response is the manifestation of our offensive disruptions. We are seeing what they put together and seeing it as we take down people, and as we take down what we call documents and other document exploitation ...
The last three years we've had some extraordinary partnerships that have been developed, not only among those of us agencies that are up here in front of you, but especially the state and local law enforcement agencies and our counterparts around the world. And it's that partnership that's allowed us to get to where we are and that we can now take this information and put it to good use in the areas that Secretary Ridge has mentioned in New York, Northern New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.
Finally, it's worth mentioning the role of the Pakistani government in this. Without Musharrif's backing, it would be much harder for his intelligence agency to capture, and the CIA to interrogate, Al Qaeda figures active there.
Lots of criticisms can be made here, as well, but let's give credit where credit is due.
"Finally, it's worth mentioning the role of the Pakistani government in this. Without Musharrif's backing, it would be much harder for his intelligence agency to capture, and the CIA to interrogate, Al Qaeda figures active there"
Are you suggesting Bush has cultivated a relationship with an allied nation? Blasphemy. And please dont have the gall (Gaul?) to point out that Pakistan has a population 2.5 times that of France.
Even worse, it's a Muslim one.
"...the different types of materials that in fact should be brought into different types of vehicles and to address whether or not certain materials can, if detonated, cause, in fact, buildings to collapse; the placement of such devices and bombs to maximize the damage to the architecture of the building."
That would explain a lot about what exactly happened on Sept. 11. The terrorists went to school after they failed to knock the towers down the first time. And WTC 7 wasn't made out of toothpicks.
Not to sink anyone's boat here ... but it really is up to the administration to fix its credibility problem. Yes, Howard Dean could be going off the deep end talking about terrorist alerts being used in some sort of political ploy, but why should I trust an article from the Drudge report to refute the implication, no matter who it came from. The only news they've ever credibly broken was Clinton's affair. I'd say that kind of journalism is credible for the Enquirer at best. I'm not saying Matt Drudge is beholden to anyone specific in government. However, his information is often most helpful to conservatives in government . I guess the whole point of this post is that if terror warnings seem suspect because of their timing, why should it suddenly be crazy to suspect them? An honest appraisal of why the warning was issued and what should be done because of it is the only answer to the current barrage of criticism regarding these alerts. An alert with no purpose or explanation, at least to me, would seem very suspect --- especially in an election year.
Terror warnings may be fair game but if a "responsible" person is going to make an accusation then they damn sure should have some reason for doing so.
Kerry saw the same briefings as the President. If Kerry has the goods to say the warning is BS then he should say so - and be prepared to defend it. If he cannot do so than then Kerry has an obligation to publicly refute Dean's malicious accusation.
Thousands of people had to make decisions about how they would treat these very specific warnings. I happy to see that the great majority kept driving on. I would want Dean's head for this - and in the best Samuari tradition.
Rob, Drudge may or may not be a credible source if he's the only one touching on a story.
However, the NY Times and Washington Post both have articles describing the recent capture of an al Qaeda operative and the resulting very very specific intel we got as a result. Both note that the intel was uncovered and sent to Washington just this last Friday. The terror alert went up, in a very specific way, immediately afterwards.
That does not seem like a credibility issue to me. Quite the contrary.
Has Kerry in fact seen the intel? Last I read, he was too busy to be briefed ... but that may have changed in the last few days.
Re: Dean's head, did you catch Sen. Lieberman being interviewed last night? I forget which of the news shows it was, but his comment was very close to this (I didn't write it down at the time -- anyone???):
"Anyone with an ounce of fairness and who is not out of his head realizes this alert was not made for political purposes."
Ouch!!
First, let me say that the specificity of the warning distinguishes it from literally all of its predecessors. That shows me, first, that the Administration can do better when it has to, and, second, makes the threat credible.
Last year's Orange Alerts appear to have been the result of total fabrications extracted at Gitmo presumably by torture under some euphemism.
I do hope that this information isn't just a more detailed fabrication, obtained the same way.
Administration can do better when it has to
Ummm .... you're making a pretty big leap of logic, AL. You're saying the Administration can produce detailed intel about specific threats if it wants to ... and that any failure to do so in the past is a matter of their choice.
That's a stretch WAAAYYYY too far. As is this claim, for which you produce exactly zero evidence:
extracted at Gitmo presumably by torture under some euphemism
Come on, AL. Perhaps you didn't bother to read the accounts in the WaPo and NYT that referenced reams of documents.
One thing I will agree with you on: intelligence is often iffy. So I cut the administration some slack when they choose to raise the terror alert in response to intel that either a) wasn't as detailed as we'd like or that b) referenced an attack we managed to disrupt.
First -- Dean put his foot in his mouth, and I think he needs to STFU., because he has no idea one way or the other.
Second -- the administration actually could produce specific warnings anytime it wanted to. At all hours of the day, jihadi wannabes are posting their fantasy bombing plans online. AQ periodically exhorts BB members to post detailed information about potential targets in the US.
Sorting the wheat from the chaff has to be an enormous challenge ...
I think the solution is to do these things quietly and not with press conferences from politcal appointees. It doesn't help when Ridge slips in the campaign rhetoric. So I condemn both Dean and Ridge, and applaud the counterterrorism folks doing very challenging work under enormous stress.
I can put up with the Michael Moore(s) and the Dean(s) of the world. I don’t pay much attention to either of them. What I pay more attention to is questions like the one posed today by Scott.
On one hand Scott is arguing the that ‘Homeland Security’ is giving away the information we know about terrorists plans to terrorists and letting the terrorists know that we know what they are doing. On the other hand he’s complaining because actions are being taken to avoid and or minimize an attack based on the plans we know about which are now defunct because the terrorists know we know what they are doing. (that's a mouthful)
Now excuse me a minute which is it. Do you or don’t you want to know? Should the public be notified and provided with ample evidence to back up the claim. After all isn’t this partially what the 9/11 commission was about? A failure to communicate and share information regarding public safety.
Any attack would be a bad thing, but the attacks in question here would have the potential to badly damage the economy for a long time. In that sense, these particular attack plans are so very dangerous that disrupting them has to take priority over exposing means/intel access IMO.
I suspect a similar calculus is at work in the White House. No one wants any attack to take place - but some are potentially so large that other considerations take 2nd place.
Robin
You hit the nail right smack dab on the head. The problem is this type of rhetoric and line of questioning is idiotic and serves only to confuse the public and muddle the issue which is security.
And then of course, we get the following:
"Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way."
Details here
So it's not quite as cut and dried as Robin makes it out to be.
JC, if you read the transcript I cited you would have learned that the reason for the elevated alert was that information gathered from Khan increased the meaning and urgency of older information in hand for some time.
So the fact that some of the intel is old is neither shocking nor does it undercut my point.
Detailed surveillance of specific key financial buildings.
Engineering discussions re: exactly what explosives in what kind of truck could be parked how close to central offices, and where to put the truck to be sure to bring down the building successfully.
Keep in mind the fact that al Qaeda's operating approach has been to develop a very detailed analysis well before any attack.
I wouldn't be surprised that we don't know time/date. That was up for grabs in the 9/11 planning until the very end. What is important is to realize the effort that al Qaeda has put into a possible attack on these particular buildings, given the financial impact on the US and the western world's economy if such an attack were pulled off.
It would seem that many are allowing their dislike of the Bush administration to obscure their good sense and their priorities .....
FWIW, from Newsday today:
Source: Terror attack to be in early September
BY KNUT ROYCE WASHINGTON BUREAU
August 3, 2004
WASHINGTON -- More financial institutions than previously disclosed may be at risk of attack, and an al-Qaida operative has told British intelligence that the group's target date is early September, intelligence sources said yesterday.
The operative, described as "credible" by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place "60 days before the presidential election" on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden.
Counterterrorism officials are analyzing data from a computer seized in Pakistan last month to see if financial institutions in addition to the five disclosed Sunday are at risk of attack, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The former senior National Security Council official said he was told by British intelligence that they are interrogating an al-Qaida operative who confirmed that financial institutions are being targeted and that an attack was planned for September.
And a U.S. official familiar with the ongoing analysis of the computer said, "There are references to other things [buildings]" in the al-Qaida computer's data, including a picture of the Bank of America building in San Francisco. "There is mention of other places."
The laptop computer was seized on July 25 following the arrest after a 12-hour gun battle of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who is wanted for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Pakistan's information minister confirmed to The Associated Press yesterday that e-mail data retrieved from Ghailani's computer indicated planned attacks in both the United States and Britain. A British official said that the threat to the U.K. was not specific.
The CIA had tipped off Pakistani authorities on the location of Ghailani's safehouse in Gujrat, Pakistan, after tracking down an al-Qaida computer engineer, who had e-mailed the data to Ghailani, 12 days earlier, U.S. officials said.
The computer engineer, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, ran a secret al-Qaida communications system and his arrest was described by a senior U.S. official as the "most significant" of a series of events that led to Sunday's raising of the threat level to "high" for five financial institutions. They are the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup building in New York, as well as the Prudential financial building in Newark and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund buildings in the nation's capital.
The former NSC official, who asked to not be further identified, said that the al-Qaida operative in British custody, while confirming that financial institutions were at risk, did not know which financial institutions were being targeted. A CIA spokesman declined to comment.
The U.S. official who disclosed yesterday that CIA and other counterterrorism officials are studying the vast amounts of computer data stored in the laptop said that the information on other institutions "does not reach the level of detail" retrieved on the five named Sunday.
Nevertheless, he said, analysts "are continuing to exploit the data to see if anything boils to the surface."
"World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn told his colleagues yesterday that "there is no information that indicates a specific time for these attacks." Hence the odd sight of police pulling trucks over, as if attacks were imminent, and journalists parking their trucks directly in front of the buildings, as if attacks were only theoretical. A District government spokesman grumbled that naming places "gives it a little more specificity, but obviously not enough.""
Link here.
The security concern here, is the boy that cried wolf issue. It is VERY bad if "by coincidence" a security alert is released - oh say right at the end of the Democratic convention - and then there really aren't any specific time issues that help make the new intelligence actionable.
People WILL start thinking that the warnings are politically motivated. Given the absolute importance of having citizens NOT shrug off security warnings, it is a priority for the Bush administration to go above and beyond, to bend over backward, to not give this impression.
The point is well taken, and well made by Mrs, Burke, that there is a lot more specific information about certain buildings - which is, at it should be, alarming.
But the administration could have, should have, and in the future hopefully will, do a much better job of DE-politicizing these warnings.
People will make their own judgement, and clearly a lot of the posters this site are not really interested in any criticism of this adminstration.
But the judgement I am making is, a better job should be being done with this. For example, releasing this information today, or tomorrow. This would lessen the appearance of politics playing a role. It's clear that this won't be the judgement of Mrs. Burke.
To view this from the other end of the political pool, look at the following -it's the jaundiced cynicism like this that reduced trust in our government, and makes things unsafe for all - but Billmon isn't the person in power here - he's not the one who is creating "an amazing series of coincidences". The Bush administration needs to try harder:
An amazing series of coincidences
i stand by my earlier statement: it is obvious to me that the Bush administration can do no right in the eyes of some people, and this current alert is a good example of that.
The thing is, the coincidences aren't that amazing. Billmon is just so busy frothing at the mouth, he's not thinking these things through.
Actually, during the Democratic convention is a really poor time to announce high-value captures, because it won't make the news unless it is Osama. A few days afterward would have been much better. So that may be a coincidence, but it isn't a very helpful one.
As for the alerts, that's not coincicidence at all - in fact, it's right on the borderline of causation.
With everybody focused in on Boston, it strikes me as a perfect time for al-Qaeda to gin up a real operation elsewhere. Precisely BECAUSE there's a very major event going on in Boston, if there's credible and specific intelligence about attacks elsewhere then this is exactly the time to raise the threat warning and take action. Waiting until after the convention would be the height of stupidity.
The same dynamic will apply again in a few weeks.
Chris Mathhews is right... the coming Republican convention is almost a sting operation, it's so tempting. But my inclination would be to pay strong attention to threats during this period aimed at places OTHER than New York, and let the professionals, radiation scanners, etc. on the ground in The Big Apple handle things there.
"Actually, during the Democratic convention is a really poor time to announce high-value captures, because it won't make the news unless it is Osama."
But it did make the news. Mind you, I'm not endorsing the Marshall/Ackerman thesis, but it did make the news.
Point taken - should have said "set the news". there's a difference between being the main item, or a distant second (third, tenth?) place item. If you're going to play timing games, there are much better times.
IMHO, jaundiced cynicism that reduces popular trust in our government MAKES US SAFER, by encouraging people to take steps on their own to defend themselves, Decentralized defense, and all that. The Angry Citizen is the greatest danger to Osama & Co.
At this point I automatically assume that statements by government officials and politicians (this includes Bush, Kerry, Dean, etc.) have essentially zero correllation with what's actually going on and close to unity correllation with political self-interest. I'm betting this assessment will yield accurate results more often than not.
Some of the intel uncovered may date back to 1993 when terrorists were trying to figure out how to bring down the WTC and failed. The thing is: why alert everyone? What can the general public do?
As a property manager in Chicago, I have been aware of many instances where notices would go out to first responders, local authorities, and facility managers. We would then quietly take steps to increase security. These alerts were frequent in the summer months of 2002 and prior to the invasion of Iraq. Had we had to contend with answering waves of questions from the general public, I am not sure that the response would have been as effective. The financial institutions in question were already hardened prior to 9/11. The Stock Exchange has been marginally blast proof since the '80s.
While no building worth occupying is altogether impervious to terrorist destruction, since Oklahoma City much has been done to improve security at critical sites. Perhaps, that is why the terrorists struck as they did. Conventional explosives placed on site by a truck, while far less risky than a multiple hijacking, was less assurred as being successful.
To me, the real question is whether or not the Bush administration has exhibited a pattern of placing politics at the forefront of governance. In assessing the Plame affair, their belligerance to the 9/11 Commission, and their virtually utter lack of bipartisan legislative achievements, I believe they have not exhibited an ability to govern first and play politics second. Howard Dean is merely stating what is on the minds of many. Bush has lost the trust of a multitude of people, and eyes roll across the land whenever Ridge opens his mouth. It is not our fault but his.
I link below to a more thoughtful post on Slate, which doesn't take a position so much on whether this was or was not political - but just asks the questions.
One small piece of evidence that political opportunism played a role:
"During the news conference where he announced the heightened alert, Ridge made the following remark: "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."
What's the phrase? "I report. You decide."
At a minimum, there are enough questions here, that again, the administration should bend over backwards to make sure that further "warnings" are not seen as political.
Link here.