So how do you feel about the terror alerts now that we know.....

a lot of the intelligence was gathered almost three years ago? I think it just inches my thoughts towards this being a politically motivated 'terror alert'. It's amazing how quickly the Democratic Convention was forgotten after the 'terror alert'. I don't know, maybe I am just reading and hearing things wrong.

When the news first came out, I told DH that the only threat was to Bush and his approval ratings. The information was just SO credible and imminent that he sent his wife and daughters to one of the main targets?

Uh uh...I don't think so.

---

Posted by 121502

a lot of the intelligence was gathered almost three years ago? I think it just inches my thoughts towards this being a politically motivated 'terror alert'. It's amazing how quickly the Democratic Convention was forgotten after the 'terror alert'. I don't know, maybe I am just reading and hearing things wrong.

---

I partially agree...undecided on it all, but your thoughts crossed my mind, a lot of peoples minds...

I wonder how credible that is...after all, doesn't citicorp hold a tremendous amount of interest in Saudi Arabia? Isn't that where the terrorits are supposedly from.

Not to belittle the fact that it is a scary thing, but it just doesn't add up.

Be Well

---

Posted by janwinterbridejoy

i think any threat regardless of how old it may or may not be should be taken seriously. they ignored several threats and valid info before and 9.11 happened. so i say let them take precautions if it is going to keep us safer.

---

Amen.

I want to clarify, just because I think it doesn't necessarily make sense does no tmean that they should not be taken seriously. Precautions need to be taken to maintain our safety.

I think Bush and his administration are damned if they do and damned if they don't. He can't win no matter what he does. They announced they had specific threats because there was no way of telling right away how old what they discovered was. So he immediately, before it even came out that the reports were old, was accused of making a political move.

I still think they should be taken seriously. Any threats old or new might provide information that can keep the country safe.

---

Posted by HearzBellz

---

Posted by janwinterbridejoy

i think any threat regardless of how old it may or may not be should be taken seriously. they ignored several threats and valid info before and 9.11 happened. so i say let them take precautions if it is going to keep us safer.

---

Amen.

I want to clarify, just because I think it doesn't necessarily make sense does no tmean that they should not be taken seriously. Precautions need to be taken to maintain our safety.

---

I think we all agree to that, I want every precaution taken, but I feel slightly less worried knowing the info is 3 yrs versus 3 weeks old...

---

Posted by jannshari

When the news first came out, I told DH that the only threat was to Bush and his approval ratings. The information was just SO credible and imminent that he sent his wife and daughters to one of the main targets?

Uh uh...I don't think so.

---

BINGO! Exactly. It's fine to be alert, but to deceive and scare people without telling them the age of the so-called intelligence is disgusting.

---

Posted by HearzBellz

---

Posted by janwinterbridejoy

i think any threat regardless of how old it may or may not be should be taken seriously. they ignored several threats and valid info before and 9.11 happened. so i say let them take precautions if it is going to keep us safer.

---

Amen.

I want to clarify, just because I think it doesn't necessarily make sense does no tmean that they should not be taken seriously. Precautions need to be taken to maintain our safety.

---

Sure, let them take precautions, but they are also obligated, in my opinion, to tell the American people the whole story. Telling us that the bulk of the 'intelligence' is three years old is not compromising national security -- it's doing the decent thing.

I just want to know where the information that the alleged attacks were supposed to take place on Monday came from. I'm sure the information, regardless of how old it is, is credible information, but I have yet to see where they found that August 2, 2004 was the day it was supposed to happen.

I don't care how prepared for an attack the City thought it was. Armed guards surrounding a building wouldn't stop a man in a truck from driving through them right into the building. I still wouldn't send my family into one of the 'targets' just to prove how safe it is, unless I knew for a certainty that there was no safety issue to begin with.

some of the information is new though. the bulk of it is old, but there have been recent updates or additional chatter or something which is why they decided to tell us now.

i strongly dislike bush and most of his policies and i think he's extremely shady. that said i don't think he's evil enough to use terrorism to manipulate us. well, maybe a little bit, but i don't think he sat around and was like hmmmm.... let's release a terror alert today so that we scare the wits out of people and they forget about the democratic convention. i think it was more like okay we have this updated info now let's exaggerate it slightly and go public. still evil, but not to be ignored.

If I remember correctly, the plans for 9/11 had been in development for a couple of years, so it may not matter how old the intelligence is.
Also from the news reports on Sunday, the reports I heard did not state that the terrorist act was suspected on Monday, only that there was a threat between now and the election. After the bombings in Spain, terrorism scholars agreed occurred was a way to impact the elections there. I don't think it is too far off to expect something similar could happen here - making this new information pretty valid.
After 9/11 many people complained that they weren't told of the dangers, and now that they are being told, everyone is complaining. The administration is damned if they do and if they don't tell everyone what might be going on. The information in that intelligence is scary whether the threat is imminent or not. 9/11 proved we as a nation have many enemies who want to kill Americans, learning that they have specific building plans will help us better secure these possible targets.

---

Posted by janwinterbridejoy

i think any threat regardless of how old it may or may not be should be taken seriously. they ignored several threats and valid info before and 9.11 happened. so i say let them take precautions if it is going to keep us safer.

---

I agree.... It's already well known that 9/11 was planned years prior to 2001.

---

Posted by m&m

If I remember correctly, the plans for 9/11 had been in development for a couple of years, so it may not matter how old the intelligence is.

---

Thank you for brining this up. How quickly we forget, ladies... One of the biggest criticisms of the Bush administration with respect to 9/11 is that he ignored the August 6th intelligence sheet titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US.' He ignored it because the intelligence was largely old intelligence. Now the alerts are coming out based on both old and new intelligence and people are jumping all over him.

You can't have it both ways - make you your minds people!

That could be it too, but it could also be that they keep updating the information, just like was said. However I do agree with the timing that the WH released the information.

Just put it this way - always be on guard no matter what the gov't says.