August 18, 2004
Playing the Terror Card
The GOP isn’t very good at growing an economy, managing the environment, or doing nation building, but there’s one thing they have down pat: Staying on message.
In case your memory of the last terror alert is growing dim, the GOP would just like to give you a friendly reminder: TERRORISTS WILL CUT OFF YOUR HEAD IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH!
"The presidential election campaign has entered a two-month period when the threat of an al Qaeda attack to disrupt the process could be greatest, a White House official warned on Thursday. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, cited no evidence of an imminent attack inside the United States."
And what the heck. If crying "Wolf!" can influence the election, the GOP might as well use the same tactic to further their policy goals as well,
"Tampering with prescription drugs could be a way for terrorists to launch an attack on Americans, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester M. Crawford said. Crawford said possible action by terrorists was the most serious of his concerns about the increasing efforts of states and cities to import drugs from Canada to save money."
That's the FDA's most serious concern about seniors getting prescription drugs without paying over-inflated prices? Bush's FDA sounded slightly less insane back when they were frantically warning us about poor quality-control of Canadian drugs, as if Canada was some third-world junta.
"A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department said it has received 'no specific information' of such a threat." Of course not. Tune in next week, when "White House officials" announce that al Qaeda wants to strengthen Social Security - the program will be dismantled immediately for your protection.
The terrorists are coming to get you all, and George W. "Quick-draw" Bush, the CEO cowboy fighter pilot from Connecticut, is your only hope. Wait! Is that a terrorist behind that tree? Better vote for Bush! Now! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
A.P.:
It’s very easy to dismiss any administration warnings as politically based. To do so unconditionally would be to ignore what happened recently in Spain. To NOT question the administration at allabout the warnings would be to be a bit naive, I suppose, considering the artful level of political gamesmanship on both sides of the aisle.
But your post really seems to be talking about the problem, rather than offering any solutions. I’d like to hear from you what you think SHOULD be done with regard to the following:
1) What warnings should be given?
2) If intel is hazy and unable to be fully substantiated, should the admin lean towards withholding the warning, or should it lean towards divulging the warning to the public.
3) If the intel suggests some type of attack, but a location is not determinable, should the admin warn the public or withhold the information until it is more complete?
4) If the admin has suspicions about a potential attack, or method of attack, should it divulge this information to allow people to protect themselves, or should it retain the information in hopes of catching the perpetrators when they begin the plot?
A.P., this is an extremely important issue. I dont see any solid answer to any of the questions I asked, since each question depends on circumstance. To blindly state that any warning is politically motivated puts you in the position of then being unable to blame the administration for NOT divulging information. Will you take that approach if an attack happens, or will you then blame the admin for not letting you know.
Its only AFTER the fact that all the the puzzle pieces come together to form a recognizable picture. I’m looking forward to reading your black and white answers to gray questions. I certainly hope you state clearly what you think, rather than simply standing on the sidelines complaining. The opportunity is here for the taking…..
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 18, 2004 12:53 PMJoe, please allow me to take this opportunity to imnplore you to answer a question you ignored on a previous thread (you actually mocked me for not answering your question while you simply ignored my own question):
What, if anything, could we civilians possibly do in response to these DHS terrorist threat announcements? Especially when they specifically tell us not to do anything differently?
I’ll even throw you a bone and answer your questions above:
1) What warnings should be given?
To the public: warnings where they actually tell us to do concrete things, or to do things differently than we normally do. Examples include: “Keep an eye out for this man (show a photo)”… “Don’t ride the subway this week”…
Otherwise, the warnings should simply be given to law enforcement and security officials only. Examples include: “watch out for people bringing big bags onto Amtrak”… or “A ship from Oman might have a bomb on it”. If these internal warnings leak out publicly, as they are likely to do especially if the added precautions are blatant like closing a highway or adding security to airports, I don’t mind as long as we are told that the authorities are on top of it.
2) If intel is hazy and unable to be fully substantiated, should the admin lean towards withholding the warning, or should it lean towards divulging the warning to the public.
My answer above doesn’t change. If the warning is hazy but individuals can do something about it, then it could be justifyable to tell the publics. Using the example of the photo of the terror suspect above, sure, show us the guy even if the odds he is in the country are slim. If the odds are next to nothing, or if there’s a good chance the guy’s innocent, then I’d hold back the photo.
3) If the intel suggests some type of attack, but a location is not determinable, should the admin warn the public or withhold the information until it is more complete?
I wouldn’t limit it to location. If location, method, and time are undeterminable, then absolutely don’t tell us. If location is not determinable but the method is crystal clear (such as the recent NYC helicopter tour threat) then they should do something about it (search people going onto helicopters) and they should tell us (“We got a helicopter threat and we’re doing something about it”)
4) If the admin has suspicions about a potential attack, or method of attack, should it divulge this information to allow people to protect themselves, or should it retain the information in hopes of catching the perpetrators when they begin the plot?
This is preposterous. The “set a trap” concept is condemnable if there is any chance the authorities can actually stop the attack. I defer to answer number one above: if they can tell us something that will actually help us, absolutely they should tell us right away. If they can’t tell us something useful but they can still investigate the threat with what knowledge they have, then they should investigate until they know enough to do something about it to prevent it. I can’t even think of an example that meets your hypothetical, actually. It’s pretty cut and dry to me.
Now it’s your turn:
What, if anything, could we civilians possibly do in response to these DHS terrorist threat announcements? Especially when they specifically tell us not to do anything differently?
I mean, of course, besides the obvious options like hiding under your bed or reporting all Arab-looking men you see to the police.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 18, 2004 02:40 PMWhen terrorism is up worldwide, when you can’t get binLaden or shut al-Queda down, when you can’t jump start the economy, solve fiscal crisis, accomplish your mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, fix our health care, judicial or penal systems, it’s time to strip search little ol’ladies and announce another worthless terror alert.
Posted by: bayviking at August 18, 2004 02:49 PMJoe, I want to pre-empt your answer a little bit with this thought: What I’d really like to see is the DHS create a 1-hour prime-time television program, or start a coast-to-coast tour or other kind of massive information campaign, to educate the American public about the day-to-day things we can do to help fight terrorism. How we should be mindful of unclaimed baggage in public place, how we should have a plan for contacting family in time of confusion and crisis, what to do about chemical odors, suspicious packages, or if we see people acting suspicious. They should tell us that being Arab-looking doesn’t count as “acting suspicious”. They should tell us about what they’re doing, about why we should be patient with long searches on airplanes and about why there are no mailboxes near federal buildings.
This is stuff we should know about and be aware of every day of the year, not just during terror alerts.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 18, 2004 03:21 PMCF-
To me these terror alerts are akin to defensive medicine practiced by doctors. They don’t help the problem, they don’t add value, but they are common practice based upon the reaction (malpractice suits) to past failures.
To me it’s a lose-lose proposition. If the administration doesn’t issue the warnings and it either leaks out that they had information, or worse, there is an attack, they are negligent. If they do issue the warnings, they are just playing politics.
I think, by your answers, you are looking for common sense in government. That might be hard to find.
I don’t think swing voters believe this garbage anymore. Bush supporters love to overhype terrorism, but this card has been played to death.
Posted by: entertainment news at August 18, 2004 06:20 PM> To me these terror alerts are akin to
> defensive medicine
The only defense I see in most of the Terror Alerts is to defend the Administration from being accused of not being attentive, not to defend America.
> To me it’s a lose-lose proposition. If the
> administration doesn’t issue the warnings and
> it either leaks out that they had information,
> or worse, there is an attack, they are
> negligent. If they do issue the warnings, they
> are just playing politics.
You may be right, but unfortunately for the Karl Rove that’s the tough hand the Administration has been dealt. Nobody said running the country was easy. Both of your scenarios are political, by the way. To even worry about the problem of “what the public will think if we withhold information” reeks of politics.
Also, we should keep in mind that there’s a difference between sharing certain information with the public and creating an official escalated Terror Alert.
> I think, by your answers, you are looking
> for common sense in government. That might
> be hard to find.
We’ll see about that after Kerry wins!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 18, 2004 06:24 PMIt won’t go away if Kerry wins. Remember “Wag the Dog?” It’s just a diferent group of people yelling……
Posted by: George at August 18, 2004 09:54 PMCrap! The point of the article was that the Bush administration is moving beyond using ‘the terror card’ to win the election - they’re now using it advance their political agenda. Oh well, I’m still new at writing articles. I’m getting better. :)
joe, I’ve answered your question in a couple other places here at WatchBlog. I’m happy to do it again.
Without specific instructions, a public warning is useless. You can try to make the case that it elevates public awareness, but I don’t think the public can be any more frightened than it already is.
The British have dealt with terrorism far longer than we have, here’s some advice from them,
“The problem (with the American approach) is that it creates public anxiety. If the goal of terrorists is to spread fear and unease then to some extent they [our own government! - AP] have done that job for them without anybody carrying out an attack.”They say, “such public warnings, often with few details, do little to make countries safer,” and “the public can do little with warnings unless it is told specifically how to respond.”
Britain’s response is, “not to make color-coded warnings, not to publish every possible threat, but work closely with institutions that may be affected to help them tighten security and address threats in the least disruptive way possible.”
In other words, the government should just shut up and protect us.
To me it’s a lose-lose proposition. If the administration doesn’t issue the warnings and it either leaks out that they had information, or worse, there is an attack, they are negligent.
George, that’s a misinterpretation of public frustration. Americans aren’t pissed about the government’s poor 9/11 performance because they didn’t notify the public, they’re pissed because the government was aware of the terrorist threat, but wasn’t doing everything in its power to stop it. Americans are pissed because the the system failed to keep those 19 hijackers out of the country and off those planes.
Informing the public - unless there is some specific action that the public can take - is useless and counterproductive. And since it’s an election year, if the ruling party is doing something useless and counterproductive that manipulates public opinion, it reeks of politics.
AP-
I think the analogy still holds. If there was a terror attack today, the Citibank building came down, and the Government was sitting on that information then how many heads would have to roll? The government is risk adverse, and it doesn’t matter which political party occupies the Whitehouse. That’s something you will have to remember if your man wins.
Posted by: George at August 19, 2004 09:51 AMGeorge, so everybody is supposed to stay away from the Citibank building? For how long? The public has been warned, so if they get blown up, it’s their own damned fault?
No, the analogy does not hold. As with the 9/11 attacks, the public will be pissed only if the government hasn’t done everything in their power to stop it. If you had been told “bin Laden is determined to attack the United States” before 9/11, what would you personally have done differently? For that matter, what have you done differently since the warning earlier this month?
Making a public announcement that “somehow, somewhere, at some time, there may be a terrorist attack - possibly in the US” is pointless, except for the emotional response.
Chris:
My apologies for not answering your question in another thread. Allow me to do so now, along with comments based on A.P.’s posts as well.
Your question is “What, if anything, could we civilians possibly do in response to these DHS terrorist threat announcements? Especially when they specifically tell us not to do anything differently?”
Awareness is the key issue, though AP seems to discount it. On that topic, I do not equate awareness with fear, as AP seems to >(“You can try to make the case that it elevates public awareness, but I don’t think the public can be any more frightened than it already is.”)
When citizens are aware, they notice things that might have gone unnoticed. As an example, I live in a “neighborhood watch” area. While my neighbors do not live in a state of fear, they do tend to notice unusual things. Most things are innocent, but I like the fact that they are noticing. Another example would be the “Do not pick up hitchhikers” signs on highways near prisons. Their intent is not to alarm anyone, nor to suggest that escaped prisoners are roaming the woods. But they are a reminder to remain aware. George’s point is a good one: In today’s society, it has become the norm to “blame” someone for whatever happens. The admin needs to recognize that the public wants information—note the calls for all kinds of sensitive information that come up on a daily basis. It’s virtually impossible to give just the right amount of information at just the right time. The reality is that no matter how much or how little information you divulge, or when you divulge it, someone out there will find fault with it. As has been proven by this thread. Let’s use Moussaui as an example. Its now been said that if only the FBI had alerted air schools about him, 911 might have been prevented. But…by alerting air schools, you make it a public issue that could be viewed as a scare tactic. So…what to do with that kind of nebulous information. Its very clear in hindsight, but not beforehand. I’m in favor of a policy of “need NOT to know” rather than “need to know”. I’d rather have too much info than not enough. Lastly, Chris, your idea of a site or structure to educate people is a good one. I suppose some would see it in a negative light, but I’d liken it to CPR training and the like.
Joe, although all of your points are valid, I think you didn’t answer the question. What could you have done differently during, for example, the last terror alert. Avoid the Citicorp building (even though Laura Bush was there)? For how long? The implication of these escalated alerts is that they are temporary. That’s my point. Why escalate and then de-escalate? Just tell us what we can do when it is helpful.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 19, 2004 03:33 PMChris:
The point I tried to make (unsuccessfully) is that being vigilant and aware IS doing something. Remember the story of the Millenium plot to bomb LAX that was foiled when Diana Dean, a customs employee, acted on a hunch and checked out the trunk of a car.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/ (how the hell do you copy a link—-am i just too stupid to figger it out?? Wait, dont answer that!!)
She says there were no alerts, no warnings etc. She just got lucky, and so did we all. I’m suggesting that with increased vigilance, perhaps we dont need to rely on such luck.
So what could citizens have done? Perhaps nothing substantial, but perhaps someone might have noticed something out of the ordinary. Or perhaps (and this is totally theory) there was a level of DISinformation from the administration, intended to trick potential terrorists.
All I can say, Chris, is that divulging just the perfect amount of information, without giving away sources, at just the right time—not too early and not too late—is simply impossible. I don’t expect that level of precision or perfection from ANY administration—I merely expect them to do the best they can with the information. And unlike you, I trust them to do their best. I also understand your distrust—-but I dont share it and that is perhaps where we move apart on this issue.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 19, 2004 06:33 PMI just wish Rove wasn’t at the terror alert meetings. Can anyone explain that?
Is this not a political meeting? (see photo)
-Cf
joe, like I said, you could try to make the case that the alerts raise awareness, but I don’t think anyone at this point passes an unattended backpack and thinks nothing of it.
Your theory about disinformation is also pretty unlikely. That last alert cost the city of New York tens of millions of dollars and counting.
Along similar lines, some are speculating the administration has “secret” information about terrorist attacks. The administration encouraged that belief in the run up to the Iraq invasion about WMDs, but it wasn’t true, and I see nothing about the surrent alert to make me believe it’s true here either.
I trust them to do their best.
I wish I could. I just finished reading the 9/11 report and it’s crazy how, except for some cosmetic differences and totally obvious stuff, little has changed.
And for one reason or another Bush keeps dragging his feet on security: He was against the Dept. of Homeland Security, he was against the 9/11 commission, he was against the Iraq intelligence commission, his budgets consistently underfund homeland security, 95% of containers that enter the US still don’t get inspected, etc.
If you trust these people with your life, it’s not based on their actions.
I haven’t seen anything reported about the last alert that leads me to believe that there was a good reason for making it public and generating panic or (worse) suspicion of their motives. A better option would have been to just make sure the potential targets are secured, and to work with the relevant agencies to make sure they stay that way.
A.P.
I truly believe that our “gotcha” journalism and political styles have something to do with all this.
We both know that the 911 commission had partisan elements to it, on both sides. The Republicans had to be careful to not let it become a witchhunt that would simply blame Republicans, or be “nuanced” in such a way as to seem to blame them.
Similarly, Democrats had to be careful not to sweep everything under the table and not create a climate for necessary change.
The admin is between a rock and a hard place, in that if it releases too much info, it gets slammed, and if it releases too little, it gets slammed. This makes the political side of the equation too large.
Additionally, with the budget where it is, Republicans know they will be blamed if they spend more money, but they are also being blamed for not spending enough. (The solution, of course, is to spend the money on the right things, but this too is complicated politically)
Our society needs to get away from the blame game, and recognize that despite best intentions, bad things can and will happen. There ARE such things as accidents in which no one is to blame. There ARE evil people like terrorists who are hard to stop, unless you restrict the civil liberties of the public. There ARE decisions that fall along the 51-49 fault line that are hard to make, but yet need to be made nonetheless, since the absence of a decision is sometimes worse.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 20, 2004 07:46 AMThe admin is between a rock and a hard place, in that if it releases too much info, it gets slammed, and if it releases too little, it gets slammed.
My point is, that’s not true. The public, by and large, doesn’t care about the actual intel. In the aftermath of 9/11, the public only wanted to know how that could happen, and they wanted to be assured the Bush administration was doing everything necessary to prevent it from happening again. Nobody expects the White House to release details. What are we going to do? Use the intel to track these guys down ourselves?
The solution, of course, is to spend the money on the right things, but this too is complicated politically
It’s not complicated. Roll back $1.3 TRILLION worth of mistargeted tax cuts that only benefit the top 20%. Reagan rolled back his tax cuts for the good of the country. Bush’s Dad did it, too. And I’ll even concede that it had a positive effect on the Golden Age of Clinton.
There ARE decisions that fall along the 51-49 fault line that are hard to make, but yet need to be made nonetheless, since the absence of a decision is sometimes worse.
Too true, joe. Write DeLay, Hastert, Frist, and those guys and ask them why they aren’t making those decisions. Democrats have advanced plan after plan to strengthen homeland security, but the Congressional Republican leadership continually drags their feet.
AP—-
It IS true. The public is demanding information be released, yet when the administration upgrades the terror conditions, the public wails that its a scare tactic.
The tax cuts—well thats a different issue that I’m not gonna tackle now cuz we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Lets just say that if our politicians—yes that means Democrats too—would stop spending all our damn money on stupid idiotic things, we’d have plenty of money for all things we need.
Seems to me that Bush is reviewing the suggestions of the 911 commission. This is in contrast to Kerry, who said “Lets do em all” before even reading the report. But for you to blame Republicans for sitting on their hands is just plain dumb. You know as well as I do that both sides create the gridlock—lets not pretend to be so naive.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 21, 2004 12:01 PMThe public is demanding information be released
I’m not aware of a public outcry to release intelligence on terrorist activities. To the extent the press was interested in the last batch, it was in reaction to an unnecessary scream of, “Wolf!” by the administration. Had the administration not made such a dramatic public event out of it, the buildings could have been quietly secured, and the public could have remained blissfully unaware - free to concentrate on the issues in this campaign.
As for Kerry, he didn’t endorse the suggestions until after the report was out. If you’ve read the report, you know that they’re all “duh” issues that should have been done years ago. And yes, both sides create gridlock, in this case it’s the Republicans.
