December 22, 2003
Condition Orange – Oh Boy!
As I was reading my newspaper this morning I saw that Tom Ridge had raised the terror alert to condition orange. This means we are at a high state of alert as opposed to condition red which is a severe state of alert. It seems as though the alert was brought on by an increased level of chatter among various terrorist cells that hasn’t been seen since the 9/11 attacks. According to my newspaper, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, al-Qaida is planning “multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks in the United States”. Since we can assume that al-Qaida is always planning catastrophic attacks our increased terror alert must be due to the increased chatter.
Has nothing changed since 9/11? Is the best we can do, after over two years, to increase the terror alert when we see increased chatter? We still have no specifics or details. You’d think our improved intelligence capabilities along with our extensive international coalition could do better than that. Hasn’t someone figured out how to interpret and translate the chatter yet? Just exactly what have we been giving up all our freedoms for anyway? It makes you wonder.
Another point to consider is that with the war in Iraq and the capture of Saddam, we were supposedly winning the war on terror; yet we have intelligence to indicate we have not been in this much danger since 9/11. I was curious as to how this could be but then I remembered that when Bush was questioned about the continuous attacks on US troops in Iraq he told us that it was evidence that the terrorists were getting desperate and that the attacks were proof positive of our incredible successes in Iraq. I guess this means that all this al-Qaida planning and chatter is proof positive that they too are getting desperate and we are winning the war on terror. Once we get to condition red I guess we can assume the war is won.
So what are Americans to do when we are at condition orange? I was watching Bush on TV and he basically said we should go about our normal routine. I think this roughly translates to “Shut up and keep spending” but then I just might be getting cynical as I get older. Are we having fun yet?
Posted by William Flynn at December 22, 2003 08:03 PMThe threat levels do serve one practical purpose. A kind of short-hand easily and quickly communicable to military, police, federal, state and local agencies to step up awareness. I can’t think of any other way that this could have been accomplished without causing some alarm among some people.
I treat the warnings with little concern, since, I have a far greater chance of being harmed by walking across the highway to see my daughter to the school bus, than I have of being harmed by a terrorist.
And since rapists, murderers, thieves and the mentally ill are so far greater on the streets of American than terrorists, condition Orange just makes me keep my hand closer to my wallet, my gun closer to my hand, and my daughter in sight at all times.
But, I don’t mind, at least we got all them pot smokers and crack heads locked up.
Posted by: David R Remer at December 22, 2003 11:23 PMIt’s CYA. Languaged tends to be moderate on this site, but we adults here know what that means. It means that the Bush administration wants to be on record as warning the public.
But they’d only be doing things this way if they were not sure they could protect Americans. Why else announce it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the terrorists are causing false alarms to make us lower our guards for their real attack. If they make their move, and Bush hasn’t taken the right crayon from the box, it could be quite a boost for them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 23, 2003 12:33 AMI think we aren’t the primary audience for the threat level changes. As David said, it is shorthand for a bunch of different public servants.
What would you have us do? There is plenty of criticism of the system and of the US, but no one is offering up a BETTER idea(s). There is much going on behind the scenes, and there is also the threat of panic in the US and in the markets. Both of which could cause more economic loss than ANY attack.
Posted by: Jeff Foreman at December 23, 2003 10:35 AMSoftly softly catchy monkey
they could use that instead. Just have Chris Matthews come on the air, say that, and go away.
Come on people - lets call a spade a spade. This system means nothing. When there is a need to get critical info to law enforcment and government officals, no one uses info-graphics on MSNBC. If there is an actual, real threat, and I can do something, let me know. If the threat is ‘something may happen somewhere at somepoint’ just go ahead and keep that to yourself. Im smart enough to know that America is a constant target of terrorism. I dont need Threat Con Tang telling me that.
Posted by: justin at December 23, 2003 11:14 AMSebastian, Jeff, I look at the system, and I see something that is a bone thrown to the public to ease their fears, or perhaps to give the appearance of an administration on watch. But other than that it doesn’t tell most people what they need to know. We could do these things without fanfare.
What the public really needs is good advice on how to deal with terrorist attacks. What Bush needs to be doing is setting up organizations of volunteers and experts who could be brought into a situation and do something productive about it.
But that runs counter to Bush’s hands-off approach. He wants to use the existing system, he wants private entrprise to work it out, he just doesn’t want to be troubled.
As I see it, that’s just a invitation to complacency, to false reassurance. It’s also an invitation to disaster, and a repeat of the chain reaction of failures that both caused, and was caused by the terrorist attacks.
Bush, I think, fails to see the world in terms of unintended and unforseen consequences. He tries to ride things out instead of being prepared, weather criticism instead of analyzing it, and bluff and cut off when asked to account for things he cannot own up to.
I wish I had a president who could admit to himself that he was not fully in control.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 23, 2003 06:15 PM
