|
Sigh ... what's the big deal?
A) Much of the planning for 9/11 occured in the late 90's to early 2000. Therefore, simply because the surveillances of these locations occured several years ago, that does not limit the potential for a threat. Particularly since these targets resurfaced for surveillance in January ... to me that IS a big deal. (Note: For those of you who may be confused, this isn't intelligence that the US has been sitting on for years, this is knowledge of intelligence gathering done in the past that came to light this past weekend).
B) Ridge admitted that nothing indicated the attacks were imminent, if local law enforcement chooses to send armed swat teams running all over the place that's not really federal jurisdication to tell them no now is it? Furthermore he solely raised the terror alerts for specific locations that were depicted as targets by intelligence rather than the country as a whole. To me, that's proper prudence rather than scare mongering.
C) John Kerry was specifically briefed on the details of the intelligence with a level of detail far greater than you or I are privy to, and thus our conjecture, likely holds very little weight against his informed opinion. And what does Kerry say?
| quote: |
"You take any threat seriously," Kerry, who was briefed on Sunday about the latest threats, told CNN.
.
.
.
Kerry dismissed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's comment that raising the terror level might be politically motivated.
"I don't care what he said. I haven't suggested that and I won't suggest that," Kerry said. "I do not hold that opinion. I don't believe that."
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/mich...ws&election2004
|
Now, if anyone were in a position to profit more from the putting forth the claim that this is political grandstanding it would be Kerry. The fact that he outright dismisses that should tell you a thing or two about his perception of the threat. My conjecture is that there's only one party guilty of politicizing this whole thing.
___________________
Retro ...
|
