| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Al-Qaeda entering operations phase |
| 2004-07-08 |
| Officials believe al Qaeda may be entering the "operational or planning phase of an attack" before the November presidential election, an administration official said Thursday. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is expected to announce that warning at a briefing at 11 a.m. Thursday. No new specific intelligence exists, however, and Ridge will not announce that he is raising the national color-coded threat level beyond the yellow, or elevated, level. It was not immediately clear how the assessment of existing intelligence has led Ridge to his expected remarks. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said the intelligence was "very non-specific" and there was "no reason for panic, no reason for paralysis. "This is not a major announcement, it’s just a fact," Frist told reporters. "The reality is of increased risk here in the homeland over the next several weeks, the next several months." Officials say there is no specific intelligence of a planned attack on either of the major political conventions. The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City. Officials say Ridge thinks it is time to again raise public awareness. Because there is no plan to raise the threat level and only general information, some Democrats privately have questioned whether the timing of the announcement is politically motivated. A senior administration official said accusations of scaremongering are to be expected. But the official, who has read Ridge’s prepared remarks, added, "This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’ts, and our default is ’do.’ " A senior campaign adviser to Sen. John Kerry, President Bush’s expected rival in November, said he is giving the White House the benefit of the doubt. He added, however, that the White House would have to explain its reasons for the new warnings. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #19 The shame of it is that there is just so much success that has happened that will never be public due to it being on the wrong side of some line on the map, or due to protection of sources and methods. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-08 11:47:56 PM |
| #18 Many major terrorist attacks that have been thwarted since 9-11-01 by the diligent efforts various federal security agencies & police, which were planed on U.S., but the general feeling is its better to alarm the public any further. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-08 10:22:10 PM |
| #17 "It might even stir Meat Moore to make another movie." Would kind of put him in a bind--guns are bad/terrorists are good. He could have a melt-down. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-07-08 5:44:44 PM |
| #16 I believe Al Qaeda's next best (best as in best chances for a success) tactic will be a small arms attack. It is not all that hard to move weapons about this country. I think you are absolutely right. 8 dead-enders with semi-automatics rifles in any-mall USA would raise all sorts of hell. It might even stir Meat Moore to make another movie. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-08 5:39:21 PM |
| #15 I sorta agree with badanov. I'm really surprised they haven't copied the DC sniper method. They could pretty easily screw things up if they did that in allot of cities at the same time. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-07-08 5:17:33 PM |
| #14 One thing that would not happen if there is an attack, would be the resolve of the American people to get those SOB's. If they think the American public will try to force their elected officials to appease, boy do they have it wrong. Plus, it's not like either candidate has ever said we shouldn't go after al qaeda. So what do they expect will happen if they try to disrupt one or the other conventions, or anything else related to the election? |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-07-08 4:11:50 PM |
| #13 #7 I wish we could get more details on these. Domestically, the Justice Department has charged 260 persons in terrorism investigations, including 140 who have pleaded guilty or been convicted. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-07-08 3:46:40 PM |
| #12 I guess thery figured it worked in Spain, maybe it'll work in the US. What's to lose besides a few infidels and a couple of FREDS. AQ wet-dream: big hit before the election; US voter says "look what GW got us into and now he can't protect us; better vote for Lurch and Dan Quayle II)." |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2004-07-08 3:34:46 PM |
| #11 "some Democrats privately have questioned whether the timing of the announcement is politically motivated . . ." Well it's Summertime, dumb-dumbs: warm weather + mood of country + political conventions = attacks easier to pull off I noted that no Dems "have questioned whether the timing of the Michael Moore's film is politically motivated . . . " |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-07-08 3:32:14 PM |
| #10 I may seem overly optimistic, but then I can afford to be. I believe that Al Qaeda has been rocked back on its heels and is unable to mount much in the way of any offensive operations. I figure a large scale bombing attack is likely out of the question, but not a smaller one. It all depands on the breaks. Think about it: Al Qaeda can't slip up once in its drive to attack the US in its homeland. One turn without a turn signal, one beaten stripper, one skipping out without paying a bill and an operation can come unravelled. And the only thing more humilating for your average run-of-the-mill jihadi than wearing Lyndie's panties while on her leash, is a failed attack. The bad guys have got to be aware of this. They get one shot per operations. One teeny tiny slipup and its all over. Having said all the above, I believe Al Qaeda's next best (best as in best chances for a success) tactic will be a small arms attack. It is not all that hard to move weapons about this country. Plus, a successful attack could serve as all the excuse liberals need to call for an outright ban on all guns. A successful smal arms attack could yield political benefit for Al Qaeda here in the homeland. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-07-08 3:29:38 PM |
| #9 I notice the arabs downstairs have ditched a suitcase with LAX on it. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-08 3:13:22 PM |
| #8 We've all got the left-wing drill down: Bush issues warning, nothing happens. Response: Bush issued the warning to promote his election chances by frightening the American People. Bush doesn't issue warning, attack occurs: Response: Dereliction of duty, what did he know and when did he know it, etc. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-07-08 2:19:52 PM |
| #7 Dallas, TX: How many alleged terror attacks have been thwarted in the United States since 9-11? And how many suspects are now in custody for their connection to these terror plots? Daniel Klaidman: It's a good question that we can't answer definitively. In our cover story this week, we report on a number of alleged plots being planned in the U.S. They include: bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge, blowing up a number of gas stations simultaneouly and attacking planes and trains. But it's unclear how far along Al Qaeda got in it's planning. from a chat with a Newsweek writer. There's also a 10-month-old report here. |
| Posted by: growler 2004-07-08 2:10:05 PM |
| #6 planning on removing bolts from one of the suspension bridges....yep |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-08 12:59:37 PM |
| #5 Wasn't there one where Ashcroft actually got a conviction on some dudes for wanting to blow up something? |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-07-08 12:53:24 PM |
| #4 none publicized.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-08 12:46:10 PM |
| #3 I have a question: Have there been any potential terrorist attacks that have been thwarted since 9/11? (Not counting Hamdi and Padilla) |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-07-08 12:34:00 PM |
| #2 You have to explain if you raise the level... warnings are part and parcel of the current status. No explanations are required for those who understand we are at war here. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2004-07-08 12:24:54 PM |
| #1 He added, however, that the White House would have to explain its reasons for the new warnings. Uhhh, because it makes sense to plan for the worst case scenario? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-08 11:32:33 AM |