Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack
 

Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Intelligence that has heightened concern throughout the government indicates that a group of terrorists already deployed inside the United States is preparing to launch a major attack this summer, U.S. counterterrorism and law enforcement officials say.

The intelligence was described Tuesday by a senior counterterrorism official on condition of anonymity as extremely credible and backed by an unusually high level of corroboration.

The intelligence does not include a time, place or method of attack but is among the most disturbing received by the government since the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the official said.

"There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard," the official said.

Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller scheduled a news conference Wednesday to outline an intensive effort by law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials to detect and disrupt any potential plots. And the FBI was dispatching a bulletin to some 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies warning of the threat.

Beginning with Saturday's dedication of the new World War II Memorial in Washington, the summer presents a number of high-profile targets in the United States. They include the G-8 summit in Georgia next month that will attract top officials from some of America's closest allies, plus the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July and the Republican National Convention in August in New York City.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department also are concerned about so-called soft targets such as shopping malls anywhere in the United States that offer a far less protected environment than a political convention hall.

Of special concern, the counterterrorism official said, is the possibility that terrorists may possess and use a chemical, biological or radiological weapon that could cause much more damage and casualties than a conventional bomb.

Despite that, the official said there was no immediate plan to raise the nation's terrorism threat level from yellow, or elevated, to orange, or high. The threat level has been at yellow — midpoint on the five-color scale — since January.

Los Angeles police held a news conference Tuesday to reassure the public.

"We would be foolhardy to ignore those statements, but I think it would be irresponsible to panic," said John Miller, head of the LAPD counterterrorism bureau.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said city officials had not been advised that terrorists were plotting an attack there.

"We are receiving highly sensitive intelligence information on a regular basis, including today, and there is nothing in that reporting to indicate a specific threat or looming attack against New York City," Kelly said in a statement late Tuesday.

The FBI already has created a special task force that is focused solely on dealing with this summer's threat. The task force, whose existence until recently was classified, is intended to ensure that no valuable bits of information or intelligence fall through the cracks, as happened before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Other actions to be taken include new FBI interviews with people who may have provided valuable information in the past, distribution of photos of individuals sought for questioning and a fresh examination of older investigative leads to determine whether they might point to elements of the summer plot.

U.S. authorities have said repeatedly that al-Qaida is determined to mount an attack on U.S. soil, in part to announce to the world that it remains capable of doing so despite the money and effort that has gone into homeland security since the Sept. 11 attacks.

There also is concern terrorists might try to mount an attack to coincide with the November election. The political fallout from the March 11 train bombings in Spain taught al-Qaida that an attack timed to an election can have a major impact. Spain's former ruling party was ousted in the voting that followed the bombing, which killed 191 and injured more than 2,000.

The official did not say how many suspected al-Qaida or other terrorist operatives are believed in the country, whether they made their way into the United States recently or have been here for some time. The FBI has warned in the past that Islamic extremist groups may attempt to recruit non-Middle Easterners or women for attacks because they would be less likely to arouse suspicion.

Special security attention already is being focused to the nation's rail, subway and bus lines. The FBI last week sent out an intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies urging vigilance against suicide bombers, who have been used by terror groups worldwide to devastating effect but not so far in the United States.

Bull****. It's complete and utter ****.

Everytime his job approval rating goes down a few points, they spout this crap about there being another attack. Excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat and puke sooner than later.

Yup. It's just getting so see through now. What's worse is between this and the gas prices, our "recovering" economy takes a beating because of this crap.

I won't even tell you how close I will be to that damn Repugnant Convention. It will be the safest place in the city, I'm sure. So safe that I might not be able to get in in the morning. Supposedly every single car of every single train will be searched. Just consider that for a few seconds.

I think the long and the short of it all is this: It's highly unlikely I'll get any work done that week (I could throw a stone to the Garden from where I am). But then again... most weeks I don't get much work done, anyway.

Plus, add in the fact that all sorts of groups are planning demonstrations and it's really going to be a mess there. But I'm sure you're probably right about it being one of the safest places to be that week with all the security. But can't you take vacation or something that week?

The day I start planning my vacation around the Repugnants' activities is the day I hang it all up.

go to cnn.com - they are now calling it a "clear and present danger" -- this is bad.

Yeah, that Harrison Ford movie did suck.

LOL

Seriously, I know the theory behind the polls drop so issue a warning, but they are citing specifics and naming names. That is a little different IMO. Hopefully, you are right :(

Yeah, but they aren't even elevating the Sherwin-Williams paint chart, so it's nothing to worry about. It's a yellow day, Jason. :laugh:

Oh blast! Should I stay out of the city!?

Only on an orange day. If your ass is darker than khaki, you're getting strip searched.

I actually had a different take on the news of the current threat, and the proliferation of the al-Qaida, because in my opinion, in just shows how inept the Bush Administration has been in yet another area.

I don't think it looks good for them at all, when you figure that billions of dollars and nearly three years later, the terrorist group that took the lives of thousands of Americans, is stronger than ever and actively planning another attack on US soil.

If they're hoping this news will bolster Bush's approval ratings, then they're dumber than I thought.

Again and not that I disagree with you, but what about Kerry makes you think he will do better? I mean perhaps he would have invaded Iraq only if the UN went along - and that is a big IF considering he voted to give W carte blanche (who did not know the result of that vote :shrug: ) regarding Iraq and Kerry consistently said and still says the intelligence was irrefutable that SH had WMD and should be removed to reduce his threat to the peaceful world. But any way, Iraq (right or wrong) is part of the terroroist equation now. So, what more could Kerry do than W? I certainly have not heard Kerry heralding and regaling us with any stellar new ideas :shrug: So, fault W all you want, but the D's can do no better according to their current rhetoric :cool:

AND - clearly Al-Q is weakened just by the not having a state in which to operate unfettered. Yet, the D's refuse to credit W for this. I mean I do not like W, but I can call a spade a spade :shrug:

I just heard that Bush renamed the Nazi gulag in Iraq "Camp Redemption."

BWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey--I was just trying to get you away from any possible terror strike at the Repug convention specifically and away from all those Repugs in general!

Then he knocked it down. :rolleyes:

Jason, you're missing the point. Johnny Stew, who I know can speak for himself well enough, is pointing out that the dumbasses in the administration have spent billions and billions of dollars, started an unnecessary war, and the terror threat has only gotten worse. Now they're warning us that al Qaida is planning another attack on US soil. Johnny is right to say they are dumber than dumb.

That has nothing to do with what Kerry might or might not do. At all.

But as to what he might do: Not much different from Dubya. The man is to the right of Dubya on the Palestine issue, it seems. He wants to stay in Iraq and stick it out. Clearly he has his head stuck up his ass. Must be from all that thin air as he flies around in that new $26,000/hour 757-200!

then he climbed a mountain and he turned around . . . ;) :laugh: :D

I know, and I appreciate the concern. But on some things, I stick to principle.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

Gore: Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet Should Resign


By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

May 26, 2004, 3:07 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- Al Gore issued a fiery denunciation Wednesday of Bush administration policy in Iraq and demanded the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

In a speech at New York University, the Democratic former vice president said the situation in Iraq is out of control.

"I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe we are facing in Iraq," Gore said, drawing strong applause from the partisan crowd.

"Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign immediately!" Gore bellowed. "Our nation is at risk every single day Rumsfeld remains as secretary of defense. We need someone with good judgment and common sense."

Rice "ought to resign immediately. She has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy. This is a disaster for our country," he said.

The former presidential candidate was gentler on Tenet, describing him as a friend and "honorable man" who should still leave his position for intelligence failures.

No - I submit Kerry would have invaded Iraq just like W did. Again, he gave W the authority to do so and now he says "I did not know he was gonna do it" - I mean who here did not think W was going to invade Iraq with or without the UN on board :shrug: So, my point is blame W all you want, but just do not think Kerry would have done anything significantly different. Remember, polls rules these poeples' lives and America was solidly behind W's invasion of Iraq, which again Kerry allowed, believed in, and supported until it backfired on W. So, I submit, we would be in the same situation if Kerry was in office.

"And coming up on al-Jazeera television is the new family sitcom 'Gilligan's Gulag.'" :laugh:

Chris, we've been saying that since January of 2001! Now I can sleep at night knowing that Gore agrees with us. :laugh:

Minute Rice knowingly perjured herself when she testified in front of the 9/11 commission and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Rumsfeld authorized the abuse at the Nazi gulag and Tenet has his head so far up Wolfie's ass that he can't see straight.

WWHHAAATTT!!!? I'm no fan of Kerry's but I must begin to question whether you've been riding with him in that stick-your-head-you-know-where aircraft. :laugh:

For Kerry to have gone into Iraq when Dubya did would mean that he would have had to stuff his cabinet with neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle and Rumsfeld. It would mean that somebody like Cheney would have been in a position of power influencing the president's actions.

You say a lot of stuff that makes sense. But this time you are so out there, that your sense has actually packed up and left the galaxy. Kerry invading Iraq would have been as likely as the Etruscans making a comeback after the fall of Rome.

Let's be real.

(with all due respect of course)

How did Condi perjure herself? I did not get that. I mean I think she was evasive, but I did not get perjury.

Al Gore should shut the hell up.

His endorsement of Dean was the beginning of the end. Is he going to do the same to Kerry?

When is he going to realize that the public simply doesn't like him? Go home, Al! Oh, right, he can't. They hate him in Tennessee too, so much so that they gave the vote to Dubya in 2000.

Then why did he repeatedly state for years that SH had WMD, was a threat, and should be removed. Then, he gives W the authority to do it knowing, despite what he now says, full well that W was hell bent on it. I think that means in a similar situation, Kerry would have done the same thing. I mean we will never really know because Kerry was not Pres. at the time, it was W's cabinet, etc. So, I look to how Kerry reacted to it and he not only was for it - he promoted it - no matter what he says now :shrug: AND - certainly big oil owns Kerry as well, because big oil one way or another owns almost all of them.

Go read her transcript. If her perjury came across as just being evasive, my bull**** detector must be on the fritz. She lied over and over and over. And then she said that she had no knowledge that national security was in her job description. That alone should get her fired.

I design rooms, but I didn't know that included designing.

I LURVE him!!

Had to chime in as a member of the public!

Not only did I read it, I watched it :laugh: I mean if the case for perjury is so obvious, the press would still be on her. I thought she did okay or at least as okay as any other slimy politician, which they all (R and D) are IMO.

I agree. :eek:

I still have his email from March of '03 where he outlined why he supported the war. My vote's going to Kerry and I think he'll be a decent president, but this is one thing he can't deny. He was Shrub's cheerleader when it came to Iraq.

I have no way of knowing if Kerry will do any better... although I have a strong suspicion that he couldn't possibly do any worse.
My hope is that after the November election, we'll get to see first-hand how effective (or ineffective) Kerry would prove to be. And if he blows it, I'll be the first to admit it.

But I strongly feel that if this War On Terrorism had been lead by anyone else, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be so easily distracted by the opportunity to take down the guy who made a fool of their daddy.
I also believe that, if the Bush family didn't have such strong ties to the bin Laden family, Osama would have been captured or killed by now.

And as far as the al-Qaida being "weakened," and the Bush Administration deserving credit for that, I'll refer you to these passages from the other news article I posted this morning:

It sounds to me like they only made matters worse, by half-heartedly going after bin Laden, leaving the job unfinished, and then changing their course to go after Hussein at the first possible opportunity.
I am bugged to no end by the fact that billions have dollars have been spent... and far more importantly, hundreds and hundreds of LIVES have been lost... and we still haven't stopped the man who orchestrated the events that spurred this War On Terrorism in the first place.

Duh... Why insist that he would then? How can you even consider that if Kerry had been president at the time the situation would have presented itself? It's outside the realm of possibilities, my friend.

Also, I agree with you that Kerry is not much different from Dubya as far as foreign policy and the war on terrorism goes. Which is why I won't vote for him. Will you join me in seeking a better, third alternative?

I told you yesterday to put down the bong, DO IT! :laugh: I suffered through all the hours of her testimony and she perjured herself a million and one times.

This media is so right-wing that it's scary. They kiss conservative ass so much that their lips are brown!

She still looks reptilian to me, too. ;)

Well, even the devil has adherents. ;)

I know - and again so there is no confusion - I will never vote for W. I just do not think Kerry is very different when it comes to the war on terror. I do think Kerry may have been able to figure out a way to make the French and Russians comply with us - perhaps hiding their, along with the head of the U.N., openly taking bribes from SH in the form of reduced price oil. So, that would have been a plus on the making America not so hated outside of the Middle East front. But, the end result is the same in that we would have invaded Iraq :shrug:

No - because any vote for Nader is a vote for W :laugh: Fortunately, you live in NY and I live in GA - so our votes will have no effect on the almost assured outcome in both states :cool:

I think that Kerry's "staying the course" BS is just that: bull****. Once he's in office, he'll pull us outta there so fast that our heads will spin.

And Kerry would never have invaded Iraq as president. That's just crap. (No offense :laugh: )

Then we're stuck with mediocrity for a long time to come.

Really, Kerry ain't going to change a thing in Iraq.

There's only one answer to the Iraq situation: Pull out. Pull out now.