The Surveillance Data Is Old

Drudge is blaring the NY Times and Washington Post stories which reveal that the surveillance data recently captured from an Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan is years old.

Let's reprise a bit of the famous President's Daily Brief for Aug. 6, 2001:

Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Of course, when the Bush team overlooked clear warnings like that, they were killed (as we say on sports talk radio).

MORE: I'll pay extra if Jesse switches to "See, it's just like Howard Dan was saying all along". And Jesse has won the "Words Mean What I Want Them To Mean" prize for his paired entry, which I have re-titled as "Howard Didn't Say What He Said (about manipulating the threat level)" and "Bush Did So Say What He Didn't Say (about the imminent threat)" (with Spinsanity commentary on the Imminent Threat debate here.) The Golden Caterpillar is in the mail!

Comments

[Bruce Moomaw]

Well, Tom, that's certainly a neat way of distracting attention from the fact that (according to "over half a dozen government officials", says the Post), the latest terrorist alert was a deliberate fake by the Bush Administration. ("'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.' ")

I think I do. Especially when you link this business to Judis and Ackerman's July 19 New Republic piece on the Bush Administration's plans to time this sort of thing for during the Democratic Convention.

[Mandrake Ethos]

How does the confusion (if you like, assume "doubt") of as few as seven law enforcement officials translate into the "fact" that this is a manufactured alert? How does this bolster the view that the Bush administration will do something to take the spot-light off the Democratic convention, when the convention is over and the results, as such, are in?

I think you're accepting problematic assumptions as true without evidence. Namely: It isn't possible that there is a legitimate concern about terrorist activities within the administration.

[J_Crater]

This is sort of like finding a list of people who are targets over the next ten years. Should half of them be told five years from now ? Which half ?

[HH]

"Especially when you link this business to Judis and Ackerman's July 19 New Republic piece on the Bush Administration's plans to time this sort of thing for during the Democratic Convention."

Earth to Moomaw: The Convention is over!

[Slartibartfast]

Earth to Moomaw: The Convention is over!

Don't blame Bruce for the speed-of-light delay, ya big meanie.

[markwark]

Ah yes, another anonymous "senior offical". When oh when will the media own up to the fact that they are being played?

[The Slickster]

What will it take for us to believe that America will never be the same as it was before 9/11! So many people hate Bush because they think he has caused all the stess about another attack on our home land - it isn't the terrorist fault that 3000 of our people died - it's that damn Bush! If he would have just left the terrorists alone, everything would be just fine - That's what Clinton did and we had no problems. Life was good.

We just can't seem to give up the idea that no matter what happens, we are safe in America - I saw this very thing in Kerry's speach about pulling back from the brink to catch our breath and then try and decide what the the rest of the world wants us to do and then wait for them to make up their collective minds!! Have they read any history books concerning a collective EU mind?

Well, wake up because it's over!!! The old America is gone - Start a new life in the face of reallity - This the greatest country in the world, bar none! We have all the tool necessary to start again - - but new thinking is requied, which is something many people have never done; new responsibilities for our own existance, i.e. each one of us must develope new philosophies for life in this country or parish -

[mike]

rnc what? pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[syn]

Islamofascist have been attacking America and American interests for the past twenty years. I think by this time they must have accumulated thousands of plans of attack during this time.

Remember, twenty years ago Islamofasicist used to simply hijack planes, twenty years later they hijack planes and fly them into civilian buildings killing thousands in an instant.

Returning to the 1990's 'I want my MTV" complacency is one plan Islamofascist expect Americans to adopt.

By the way, Islamofasicst have always proclaimed they have the luxury of time on their side.

9/11/2001 was not the beginning and it is certainly not the end.

[Alexande]

No... of course this isn’t political, or is it? Information we already knew, that financial institutions are at risk of attack, (its hilarious watching the infotainment news pretend they havent been saying this for three years) suddenly becomes "actionable" due to Pakistani intelligence suddenly "unearthing" a source confirming what we already knew? And then, when it is confirmed years later what we already knew (And what the 9/11 commission has been screaming for a year now) then we suddenly throw up blockades in the streets only days after the Democratic convention?

CNN reported an inside source in Pakistan a month ago who stated that the white house was demanding that Pakistan deliver a high value target during the convention. Looks like they delivered and yet the so called liberal news media is all over TV today declaring it "irresponsible and outrageous" to suspect there is politics involved in this? WTF has happened to journalists in these last three years? They might as well be running for office themselves the way they defend every Bush policy and deride all critisizm. They seem to have the intellectual curiousity of a Michael Jackson fan and like it that way.

[syn]

9/11/2001 was planned since 1996.

[HotBrownSandwich]

I sure hope all the folks on this board who think terror alerts are politically motivated had something to say about Clinton when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. You folks sure have short memories.

Go here for your history lesson.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

[TM]

My quarrel with the Clinton '98 comparison is that Clinton controlled the timing of the missile strike into the Sudan - that aspirin factory/milk factory/chemical warfare factory was not going anywhere, and another week more or less would have meant nothing (IIRC).

The attack on Bin Ladin did seem to be time sensitive.

The December attacks on Saddam were part of a drama played out over 1998, but the timing was certainly in Clinton's control.

Now, the timing of the latest alert is in Bush's control. But the source of this surveillance intel was only captured on July 13 - how long should Bush wait before publicizing this - just befroe his convention, just after, right away (during the Dem convention?)?

It seems to me that Bush really does not control the flow of new threat info.

[Cecil Turner]

Don't blame Bruce for the speed-of-light delay, ya big meanie.

Stop! You guys are hurting me. Anyway, in view of the recent discussion of time travel, the Star Trek vote, and aliens in general, it's probably time to proffer the obvious explanation for the John-John ticket: Planet 10. (You know, Buckaroo Banzai, Grover's Mill, and all the Johns working at Yoyodyne Propulsion Labs?) And Lord Whorfin hasn't been very active lately . . . working on something else maybe? Coincidence . . . I think not!

[John BigbooTAY]

Shhhhhhh! Ixnay on the Overay usterThray!

[WildMonk]

Alexande,

So...you hate Bush. You hate Bush if he warns us because he's just trying to scare us. You hate Bush if he doesn't because then he's hiding information. You hate Bush if people die in a terrorist attack because its obviously his fault. You hate Bush if people don't because obviously he's just manipulated the whole "terrorist" thing to scare us into voting for him.

So...you hate Bush. Given that there is "no new information there" no matter *what* you write to us about Bush (who you hate) then why on earth should we ever bothering to read what you write? All we'll find out is what we already know: you hate Bush.

[freetotem]

Markwark: The problem is that many in the media WANT to be played. They want to believe is Bush is evil no matter what he does.

Bruce Moomaw: If you look later in the NYT and WaPo stories, you will find that the old reports are bolstered and confirmed by very recent ones (it's buried late in the sory, per the standard Times/WaPO MO. Or if you read the LA Times report, you will see a different emphasis placed on the significance of the older and newer information. But then, that would assume you have any interest in actual facts. Perhaps you don't need them because you already know Bush is evil. You probably still think Joe Wilson is telling the truth.

[Mark Buehner]

It is critical to understand that if there is/was indeed an Al Qaeda cell waiting to launch this attack, they would launch it the moment they got wind that their plan had been compromised in the Pakistan raid. This is a suicide attack, they dont have to worry about getting away. Even assuming the attack was scheduled for some other time, it is a very real probability the capture their control in Pakistan would prompt the immediate attack. That is why it was utterly prudent to protect those listed targets the moment we came upon the intel.

[Ann]

Psychiatrists are seeing a lot more "moonbat syndrome" cases in the ERs lately. Since almost all cases are democrats, mental health professionals hypothesize a link between Bush hating and moonbatitis. Frontal lobe destruction occurs with prolonged excess hatred, such as hatred of a political figure.

When asked why the syndrome was less prominent during the Clinton administration, most psychiatrist refuse to comment on the record-but off the record they suggest that perhaps republicans had important things to do which kept their minds occupied and off politics most of the time.

[Crank]

On the Clinton bit:

1. It wasn't that Clinton did things at times that were convenient, but that his two national-security-related military ventures were at his moments of maximum political peril: impeachment and his grand jury testimony.

2. Anyway, the real problem wasn't that Clinton attacked bin Laden and Saddam when he needed a distraction. The problem was that Clinton DIDN'T attack bin Laden or Saddam EXCEPT when he needed a distraction. I don't think Clinton was deliberately playing wag-the-dog, but being under scandal-induced pressures seems to have focused his mind in ways that didn't happen once the impeachment drama passed from the scene.

[ParseThis]

Well, if Bush had advised Pakistan to capture HVTs ASAP, this plot might have been uncovered when it was only, say, two years old. There's no fast lane in Mayberry.