D.C. to blow up

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

in a news conference in about an hour, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge will announce that the terror threat level in Washington D.C. has risen from yellow to orange. There's apparently new intelligence that Al-Qaeda will try to sneak operatives through the Mexican border. For some reason it's not on the web yet, but it's being reported on all the assorted cable news channels.

 

Personally, I think it's dangerous to blow the orange wad so soon. If there's no attack, then orange is wasted on "possible attack", and you only have red left for "immenent". What if they need a new color for during or post attack threats? Then the whole color system is shot to hell. Naturally, without colors, chaos would ensue

 

 

ps - NYC has also been named as a possible target, of course the've been on "orange" alert since the whole color thing started in the first place.

[Vyce 0]

All I can say is, they better not fucking blow up the city until I leave on vacation in a week or so.

[2GOLD 0]

Well, here is a crazy question.

 

If they info that they are sending people across the border...then shouldn't the alert be high ON THE FRICKIN BORDER as well??

[Downhome 0]

I believe I just heard them say that the terror level is going to be raised to...THE BAD COLOR, in NY.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm going to be in NYC on August 20-22...should be interesting.

[Guest CronoT]

Well, here is a crazy question.

 

If they info that they are sending people across the border...then shouldn't the alert be high ON THE FRICKIN BORDER as well??

When you consider that, on average, about 10,000 illegals crossing over from Mexico attempt it every day, finding the few who are intent on destroying the US by means of terrorism instead of being a giant fucking burden on society, the odds of finding them are rather small.

 

...and yes, illegal immigration on the Mexican/US border is a hot-button issue for me, since I live right on the border.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

THE BAD COLOR

Green?

 

Oh no, wait, that's just if you're GWB or working on his election team.

[Vyce 0]

Let's try and keep the petty-ass Bush bashing to a minimum, thank you, since the topic at hand is whether or not D.C. or NYC is going to be attacked within the next few days.

 

Some of us have to WORK in those cities, as I do tomorrow, and frankly, I'm fairly concerned whether or not I'll be able to actually get there and back.

 

Christ, you'd think some people have the slightest amount of TACT.

[NoCalMike 0]

Let's try and keep the petty-ass Bush bashing to a minimum, thank you, since the topic at hand is whether or not D.C. or NYC is going to be attacked within the next few days.

 

Some of us have to WORK in those cities, as I do tomorrow, and frankly, I'm fairly concerned whether or not I'll be able to actually get there and back.

 

Christ, you'd think some people have the slightest amount of TACT.

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

[Guest SP-1]

Because we should completely divulge everything we know to the news media.

 

Definitely.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Same here Vyce

[HollywoodSpikeJenkins 0]

I hope they don't raise NY to lavender.

 

 

Hopefully it goes back down to albino.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's try and keep the petty-ass Bush bashing to a minimum, thank you, since the topic at hand is whether or not D.C. or NYC is going to be attacked within the next few days.

 

Some of us have to WORK in those cities, as I do tomorrow, and frankly, I'm fairly concerned whether or not I'll be able to actually get there and back.

 

Christ, you'd think some people have the slightest amount of TACT.

Tact? Out of the Bush haters? Good luck with that goal.

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

"Why did Bush not tell anybody about the warnings he received before 9/11?"

(several months later)

"Why can't Bush give more specific warnings? What good does giving out vague warnings do us?"

 

Yup, no inconsistency there.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Let's try and keep the petty-ass Bush bashing to a minimum, thank you, since the topic at hand is whether or not D.C. or NYC is going to be attacked within the next few days.

 

Some of us have to WORK in those cities, as I do tomorrow, and frankly, I'm fairly concerned whether or not I'll be able to actually get there and back.

 

Christ, you'd think some people have the slightest amount of TACT.

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

Recently obtained information — including photos, drawings and written documents — led the government to take the unprecedented action of naming specific buildings as potential targets:

 

— The Citigroup Center building and the New York Stock Exchange (search) in New York City.

 

— The International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington.

 

— Prudential Financial Inc.'s headquarters in northern New Jersey.

 

"The preferred means of attack would be car or truck bombs," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (search) said in a briefing for journalists. "That would be a primary means of attack."

 

The government said the new intelligence indicated the meticulous planning of Al Qaeda. Ridge identified explosives as the likely mode of attack, as opposed to a chemical or biological attack or a radiological "dirty" bomb.

 

That's pretty specific I think. Citigroup, NYSE, IMF, World Bank, and Prudential are the targets by truck or car bombing, information obtained by obtained documents and photos. What more do you want, date and time?

 

Here's the whole article for those interested:

 

Terror Alert for Financial Sites

 

Sunday, August 01, 2004

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — The federal government warned Sunday of possible Al Qaeda (search) terrorist attacks against "iconic" financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J., saying a confluence of chilling intelligence in recent days pointed to a car or truck bomb.

 

Recently obtained information — including photos, drawings and written documents — led the government to take the unprecedented action of naming specific buildings as potential targets:

 

— The Citigroup Center building and the New York Stock Exchange (search) in New York City.

 

— The International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington.

 

— Prudential Financial Inc.'s headquarters in northern New Jersey.

 

"The preferred means of attack would be car or truck bombs," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (search) said in a briefing for journalists. "That would be a primary means of attack."

 

The government said the new intelligence indicated the meticulous planning of Al Qaeda. Ridge identified explosives as the likely mode of attack, as opposed to a chemical or biological attack or a radiological "dirty" bomb.

 

Ridge said the government's threat level for financial institutions in just the three cities would be raised to orange, or high alert, but would remain at yellow, or elevated, elsewhere.

 

The Federal Reserve, the most potent symbol of America's financial strength, was not on the list of threatened buildings.

 

The government provided a wealth of detail that it had obtained in the past 36 hours to 72 hours, but a senior intelligence official described it only on condition of anonymity. The official described "excruciating detail" and meticulous planning "indicative of Al Qaeda."

 

The official said the intelligence gathered from several sources indicated scouting had been done to identify security in and around these buildings; the flow of pedestrians; the best places for reconnaissance; how to make contact with employees who work in the buildings; construction of the buildings; traffic patterns; locations of hospitals and police departments; and which days of the week present less security at the buildings.

 

To illustrate the level of the intelligence, the official cited these examples of detail possible plotters had accumulated: midweek pedestrian traffic counts of 14 people per minute on each side of the street for a total of 28 people; that some explosives might not be hot enough to melt steel; and that the construction of some buildings might prevent them from falling down.

 

The official said he had not seen such extraordinary detail in his 24 years in intelligence work.

 

The warning is based partly on documentary evidence — obtained during successful CIA counterterrorism operation — that provides clear indications that Al Qaeda operatives are casing specific buildings in the financial sector, another official said, also speaking only on the condition of anonymity.

 

The counterterrorism official said the surveillance was going on before and after the 2001 terrorist attacks, but it remains unclear how recently the operatives were conducting the vulnerability assessments.

 

Sunday's warning was prompted in large part by Pakistan's capture of an Al Qaeda operative several weeks ago and documentary evidence that was later uncovered, the official said. That operative's identity has not been disclosed.

 

Ridge said it would be up to New York City officials to decide whether to move to the highest level, red. The city has remained on orange since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

In Washington, Mayor Anthony Williams put the whole city on a code orange alert level, although the Homeland Security Department has not officially elevated the alert status for the entire city. The department's warning was tailored just to the city's financial sector.

 

The threat potential remains through the Nov. 2 elections, Ridge said.

 

The secretary said the government took the unprecedented step of naming particular buildings because of the level of specificity of the intelligence. "This is not the usual chatter. This is multiple sources that involve extraordinary detail," Ridge said. He said the government decided to notify the public because of the specificity of detail it had obtained.

 

The NYSE and the Washington institutions were to open for business Monday, with employees expected to report to work. Nearly 10,000 employees work at the IMF and World Bank in Washington, where security was being increased.

 

Officials in the capital said additional security measures were being put in place at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, where the nation's money is printed, and the Federal Reserve. Those two buildings were not mentioned by Ridge as potential targets. The nation's central bank occupies an imposing building on Constitution Avenue.

 

An NYSE spokesman declined comment on security, but increased measures since the Sept. 11 attacks have included barricades on all sides and checkpoints to enter the building. A Citigroup spokesman cited a company e-mail to employees that said they should expect to see tighter security at all of its New York buildings. The 59-story Citigroup Center building is among Manhattan's tallest.

 

A spokesman for Prudential said the company had increased its security before the threat. He declined to offer details, but said employees were expected to report for work Monday.

 

This was the first time the color-coded warning system had been used in such a narrow, targeted way, Ridge said at a news conference at department headquarters.

 

Referring to terrorists who are hostile to the United States, Ridge said, "Iconic economic targets are at the heart of their interest." He said workers at the specific buildings mentioned should get guidance from security officers at each site and remain alert as they go to work.

 

The government's warning came four weeks before the Republican National Convention in New York, which will draw more than 30,000 people, including top government officials and the president.

 

Ridge sidestepped a question about whether the convention should go ahead — its main item of business is formally nominating Bush. Ridge said only that New York already operates at an extraordinary level of security and the city would draw additional protective measures from the government as a national security event.

 

The Democratic National Convention just ended Thursday night in Boston, where nominee John Kerry emphasized his national security credentials. Some Democrats had grumbled last month when the Justice Department announced a higher threat existed in the window through the elections.

 

Federal officials offered an intelligence briefing to Kerry for Sunday night and his campaign said he was making arrangements to receive it while campaigning in Michigan.

[NoCalMike 0]

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

"Why did Bush not tell anybody about the warnings he received before 9/11?"

(several months later)

"Why can't Bush give more specific warnings? What good does giving out vague warnings do us?"

 

Yup, no inconsistency there.

-=Mike

Don't pull a single quote out of a conversation. If anything link to the thread so i can read it in context. Secondly, I don't see how it is inconsistent anyway. It sounds more like two seperate conversations about two serperate issues. Nice try, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

"Why did Bush not tell anybody about the warnings he received before 9/11?"

(several months later)

"Why can't Bush give more specific warnings? What good does giving out vague warnings do us?"

 

Yup, no inconsistency there.

-=Mike

Don't pull a single quote out of a conversation. If anything link to the thread so i can read it in context. Secondly, I don't see how it is inconsistent anyway. It sounds more like two seperate conversations about two serperate issues. Nice try, though.

No, it's the same thing.

 

People are ignoring this current system AFTER 9/11 happened. How much would these warnings have been shit on if they were mentioned BEFORE 9/11?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Let's try and keep the petty-ass Bush bashing to a minimum, thank you, since the topic at hand is whether or not D.C. or NYC is going to be attacked within the next few days.

 

Some of us have to WORK in those cities, as I do tomorrow, and frankly, I'm fairly concerned whether or not I'll be able to actually get there and back.

 

Christ, you'd think some people have the slightest amount of TACT.

well then tell Tom Ridge to stop claiming an attack is highly likely every other day, only to give out the most vague and non-informative information.

 

Your response only works if he had been making a post criticizing Tom Ridge.

 

But he didn't.

 

For whatever reason, he decided to use this opportunity to be an ass.

 

That's pretty specific I think. Citigroup, NYSE, IMF, World Bank, and Prudential are the targets by truck or car bombing, information obtained by obtained documents and photos. What more do you want, date and time?

 

The problem I have with the information is that even though it's specific, there's still no guarantee that those are the real targets or if it's just some sort of elaborate feint.

 

Everyone could be focused on the financial institutions in targets, and in the meantime some jihadist could stroll into the subway system during rush hour with a backpack bomb.

 

When I hit the Metro tomorrow, I better see Metro cops out the goddamn wazoo. Hell, bring the damn bomb-sniffing dogs too.

[NoCalMike 0]

How much would these warnings have been shit on if they were mentioned BEFORE 9/11?

-=Mike

Dunno, but any forgone conclusions is purely speculation.

[Guest Anglesault]

All I can say is, they better not fucking blow up the city until I leave on vacation in a week or so.

I left D.C. the day before some loon rushed the Capitol Building one time. It was kind of minor and it made the news off anf on for like a week or so, but it as good to kind of avoid that headache.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Why did Bush not tell anybody about the warnings he received before 9/11?"

(several months later)

"Why can't Bush give more specific warnings? What good does giving out vague warnings do us?"

 

Yup, no inconsistency there.

-=Mike

If they were all like "People who live near financial centers should move out, people who work in financial centers should not come to work. Residents should keep bottled water available for emergencies" it would okay and the complaining, while maybe not GONE, would be reduced.

 

It's this "We're raising the terror alert to 'High', but don't feel too scared to go to the local megamall" business that nobody likes.

[Dangerous A 0]

This eats an ass. I am making my way out east and was going to hit up NYC for the first time in my life later this week. Shit better not go down.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Why did Bush not tell anybody about the warnings he received before 9/11?"

(several months later)

"Why can't Bush give more specific warnings? What good does giving out vague warnings do us?"

 

Yup, no inconsistency there.

        -=Mike

If they were all like "People who live near financial centers should move out, people who work in financial centers should not come to work. Residents should keep bottled water available for emergencies" it would okay and the complaining, while maybe not GONE, would be reduced.

 

It's this "We're raising the terror alert to 'High', but don't feel too scared to go to the local megamall" business that nobody likes.

You assume we get DIRECT info like this on a regular basis.

 

Remember, Bush got ripped for not warning America about 9/11 in advance --- and he basically had "Well, he'll attack America at some point in the future" to go on.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes, but those people were idiots. And before you dig in on me, remember that I've said he should have boosted security at airports since hijacking planes as explicitly mentioned, to which you replied that it would have been virtually impossible to do because people would throw a tantrum about the lines at airport security.

 

Which, of course, always made me feel better. Since I wasn't the guy saying that 9/11 couldn't have been prevented because impatient people want to get to their plane faster.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, but those people were idiots.

Boy, that'll piss off Tyler, since one of his idols was one of the guys stating it.

And before you dig in on me, remember that I've said he should have boosted security at airports since hijacking planes as explicitly mentioned, to which you replied that it would have been virtually impossible to do because people would throw a tantrum about the lines at airport security.

 

Which, of course, always made me feel better. Since I wasn't the guy saying that 9/11 couldn't have been prevented because impatient people want to get to their plane faster.

First, fuck you and your shitty condescension. You are in no place to look down on anybody.

 

Yeah, damn me and that pesky LOGIC thing. NO chance of people --- like, say, the ENTIRE Democratic Party --- bitching about THAT.

 

Keep in mind the firestorm Bush got when his administration discussed plans for the election in the case of a terrorism attack. And that was AFTER the terrorist attacks.

-=Mike

...BEFORE the attacks, Good luck convincing people that security is needed.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

drudgereport has the SIREN OF DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (its not the end of the sentance, but its the SIREN OF DOOM, so it deserves the !!!s) on a note that apparently the Qaida documents that prompted this alert were actually 3-4 years old.

 

...Developing... (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I hope they don't raise NY to lavender.

 

 

Hopefully it goes back down to albino.

Blackwatch plaid.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

More on the SIREN ON DOOM report (even though the siren no longer exists) from politics' harry knowles, Matt Drudge:

 

Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old... NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials 'had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way'... WASH POST Page One: Alerts Stemmed from Pre-9/11 Acts /// 'There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new,' said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. 'Why did we go to this level?... I still don't know that'... POST: 'Most of the information was compiled prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and that there are serious doubts about the age of other, undated files'...

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

from politics' harry knowles, Matt Drudge

[Guest INXS]

The American government have made me very sceptical regarding any "terror threats", with their history of lying, cover-ups, underhanded tactics and poor intelligence. I can't help but think that this latest threat warning is a tactic to scare the public and to remind them that terrorists are out there.

[Guest MikeSC]

The American government have made me very sceptical regarding any "terror threats", with their history of lying, cover-ups, underhanded tactics and poor intelligence. I can't help but think that this latest threat warning is a tactic to scare the public and to remind them that terrorists are out there.

You know, honestly, shut the phuck up.

 

I am so damned tired of this bullshit. Yeah, the government is just MAKING ALL OF THIS SHIT UP. Hell, they probably staged 9/11.

 

God, I hope liberals aren't all like you. I wouldn't trust you to watch my fucking dog, much less to govern this country.

-=Mike