Bush Says Cooperation Thwarted 2002 Attack

[allyray231]

Bush Says Cooperation Thwarted 2002 Attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Sorry I don't buy it. Thoughts?

[msnicolea]

How convenient!

[allyray231]

That is what I was thinking--and I bet it just so happens that they were able to stop it from happening by "wire tapping" ;)

[IrisHope]

I didn't turn into oncoming cars so I was able to thwart a major car accident today.

[jnettie]

Lol!

[msnicolea]

I didn't turn into oncoming cars so I was able to thwart a major car accident today.

LMAO! I, too averted disaster when I turned off the toaster oven, after briefly leaving it on post muffin warm-up!

[sue-bert]

The entire article you cited is 4 lines long. It's pretty vague. I have no basis by which to evaluate its veracity.

Does anyone have a more detailed article to post?

s-b

[SingleWhiteFemale]

sue-bert, I clicked on the link and the article is about a page long.

Here's a CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html) for you :)

[BTB]

I don't doubt that attacks have been planned during the past 4 years and 5 months. That they haven't succeeded is likely due to a number of factors, and I do think some credit is due to changes made in security policies and procedures during that time, no matter how one otherwise feels about the present administration.

[laurenc]

so... unless i'm missing something... if the attacks were thwarted in 2002, why is this news only being made public *now*? i guess i'm just a little confused as to why an administration so focused on the showing the world how it is winning the "war on terror" would hold on to something newsworthy for so long? (and furthermore, why they wouldn't try to use such a newspiece in their 2004 election campaign?)

[sue-bert]

sue-bert, I clicked on the link and the article is about a page long.

Here's a CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html) for you :)

Thanks -- I don't know why I couldn't see the Yahoo article.

[wine_o_girlie]

so... unless i'm missing something... if the attacks were thwarted in 2002, why is this news only being made public *now*? i guess i'm just a little confused as to why an administration so focused on the showing the world how it is winning the "war on terror" would hold on to something newsworthy for so long? (and furthermore, why they wouldn't try to use such a newspiece in their 2004 election campaign?)

I think we could all come up with a pretty good idea...;)

[allyray231]

Thanks for the CNN link. laurenc That is my point--and why I think it is a bunch of crap. I agree that security is much better these days-but I think to come out with this stuff now is a bit odd-kwim?

[BTB]

so... unless i'm missing something... if the attacks were thwarted in 2002, why is this news only being made public *now*? i guess i'm just a little confused as to why an administration so focused on the showing the world how it is winning the "war on terror" would hold on to something newsworthy for so long? (and furthermore, why they wouldn't try to use such a newspiece in their 2004 election campaign?)

The CNN article says this news was made public *last year*, but that this is the first time details have been released.

[jnettie]

Personally, I think it's all for show. For example, there are security check points on the Brooklyn Bridge only on the Manhattan bound side. Apparently, terrorists will only be coming from Brooklyn when they blow up the bridge, not toward Brooklyn.

[allyray231]

jnettie I think of that sometimes too--there are a ton of cops at 34th street subway but none in Queens--um what if they get on the subway in Queens??

[pocket]

this president has broken faith too many times. i can't imagine why he thinks that anyone takes the things he says seriously anymore. if he says something, you can go ahead and assume the opposite is the truth.

[sue-bert]

I'm confused as to which aspect of this news item is generating the skepticism shown here:

- the idea that terrorists planned an attack on the U.S?
- the idea that they were found out?
- the idea that the U.S. would possess the intelligence and wherewithall to prevent the attack?

Or do people just doubt the entire story because it seems suspicious that details are being released >3 years after the event took place (and at a politically advantageous time)?

s-b

[lawyerlee]

Or do people just doubt the entire story because it seems suspicious that details are being released >3 years after the event took place (and at a politically advantageous time)?

s-b
For me, this is what makes my hair stand on end. It's rather convenient.

[batgirl]

Its fear-mongering. Plain and simple.

Five bucks says that the terror alert status will go up just prior to the november elections... Any takers???

[msnicolea]

Or do people just doubt the entire story because it seems suspicious that details are being released >3 years after the event took place (and at a politically advantageous time)?


Yes, this is my main concern.