Log In | Register
16 Comments
Printadvertisement
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida terrorists may be plotting more urgently to attack the United States to maintain their credibility and ability to recruit followers, the U.S. military commander in charge of domestic defense said.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command, also told reporters Thursday he has not seen any direct threats tied to the U.S. presidential elections. But he said it would be rash to think that such threats are not there.
"We need only to look at Spain and see that they're certainly willing to try to do something that is significant that could affect an election process," Renuart said. "I think it would be imprudent of us to let down our guard believing that if there's no credible threat that you know of today, there won't be something tomorrow."
While he said that U.S. authorities have thwarted attacks on a number of occasions, he said terrorist cells may be working harder than ever to plot high-impact events. He did not point to any specific intelligence that authorities have received but said the "chatter" they are hearing "gives me no reason to believe they're going to slow down" in their efforts to target the U.S.
"If an organization like that is to maintain credibility and continue to grow more of its extremists, it has to show tangible results," Renuart said. "So I think there may be a certain sense of urgency among that organization to have an effect. So it would tell me that they're trying harder."
Asked about the terror threat, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said, "There continues to be no credible information telling us about an imminent threat to homeland at this time."
In July, U.S. intelligence analysts, in a threat assessment, concluded that al-Qaida had rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The report said the terror network had regrouped along the Afghan-Pakistan border, but it also noted that officials knew of no specific credible threat of an attack on U.S. soil.
About the same time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff raised eyebrows when he said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack.
On Thursday, however, Chertoff said the U.S. has successfully lowered the risk of a large-scale domestic terrorist attack for the near future.
"We have significantly reduced the risk of a major attack in the short term," Chertoff told a group of editors at The Washington Post in a report posted online Thursday.
Chertoff said the U.S. effort was one of the reasons there has been an increase in attacks by Islamic extremists in Europe. Improvements in U.S. traveler screening and border security have shifted the focus of al-Qaida operatives and sympathizers to Europe, he said.
Renuart said that of the more than a dozen daily events that Northern Command responds to — ranging from natural disasters to threats — two or three may have the potential to be terrorist incidents.
The chatter, which included public audio and video tapes released on the Internet by al-Qaida leaders, suggests that they are looking for a way to have a big impact again, he said. Pressed for details, he said the chatter was more common but "whether that's louder or more ominous, I'm not sure I'm ready to draw that conclusion."
He did, however, repeat his assertion — which he first made in July — that he believes there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States.
President Bush, in a speech Thursday, also said the United States remained under threat from terrorists. Marking the fifth anniversary of the creation of the Homeland Security Department, Bush said that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "it was hard to imagine that we would reach this milestone without another attack on our homeland."
Yet he said, "On this anniversary, we must also remember that the danger to our country has not passed. Since the attacks of 9/11, the terrorists have tried to strike our homeland again and again. We've disrupted numerous planned attacks — including a plot to fly an airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast and another to blow up passenger jets headed for America across the Atlantic Ocean."
Bush said the lesson is clear: "The enemy remains active, deadly in its intent — and in the face of this danger, the United States must never let down its guard."
___
AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt and AP writer Eileen Sullivan contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
U.S. Northern Command: http://www.northcom.mil/
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
8 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Associated Press's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Breaking News, Newsvine International, Open Source Intelligence, The War Room
- Regions: United States , Washington DC
- Public Discussion (16)
- Breaking News
- Newsvine International
- Open Source Intelligence
- The War Room
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.8
2.3
1.3
{"commentId":1548742,"authorDomain":"cd-blather"}
Warning, blowing steam comment ahead.
More terrorist threats?! Well, Bush is this mans commander in chief. He must follow orders.
{"commentId":1548742,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cd-blather"}
- 1 vote
#1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:05 PM EST{"commentId":1548826,"authorDomain":"smallfork"}
Gotta get that third star before the democrats come to town...
{"commentId":1548826,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"smallfork"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:32 PM EST{"commentId":1549431,"authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
I suppose you are both 9/11 truthers who believe that terrorism is a figment of the rep imagination?
{"commentId":1549431,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:36 PM EST{"commentId":1549540,"authorDomain":"jeremys"}
Just a random warning of a possible attack they have no direct proof that could happen. It has nothing to do with the elections I'm sure.
{"commentId":1549540,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"jeremys"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:08 PM EST{"commentId":1550004,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
"I think it would be imprudent of us to let down our guard believing that if there's no credible threat that you know of today, there won't be something tomorrow."
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, eh? There's no evidence I'm run by an evil platinum alien robot either, but that doesn't mean it's not true, according to that guy.
{"commentId":1550004,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
#5 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:40 AM EST{"commentId":1550893,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
Al-Qaeda would attack the US if they could (or are merely biding their time)...AND...the Bush Regime and its epigones keep playing the Fear Card that has garnered political advantage for them in the past. IOW--A partnership of sorts. (Which isn't exactly news.)
It's enough that both sides have been busy about inserting further uncertainty into all this chaos.
The point is: The whole situation stinks.
====
{"commentId":1550893,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:54 AM EST{"commentId":1551405,"authorDomain":"philip-raabe"}
both sides stink!
{"commentId":1551405,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"philip-raabe"}
#7 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 11:47 AM EST{"commentId":1556978,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
I've always wondered about something. We know two things: that George Bush has repeatedly gone on TV and assumed his most tough guy pose and informed the country that the people in Congress who want to inhibit his multi-gazillion dollar domestic wiretapping scheme don't care if we get attacked by terrorists again, but he does. He usually says something along the lines of "I'll do anything to protect the American people," and the subtext is "including break that stupid FISA law."
The second thing we know is that George Bush is reluctant to slow down the massive flow of unchecked, unidentified, undifferentiated people across the southern border. The single easiest way for terrorists to arrive and set up the al Qaeda cells he says are probably here, is to cross the southern border. Since they want the border to remain just as it is, either terrorists aren't the threat he and his friends are telling us they are or they want them here. I don't see any other explanations that come close to explaining this.
Okay. Now this guy is the big John Wayne about "protecting the American people" and he'll even go to such lengths as to flout the Constitution and the laws of the land to do it, and if it was true when he said
"The enemy remains active, deadly in its intent — and in the face of this danger, the United States must never let down its guard."
why is a 3,000 mile back door to the country wide open? Wouldn't closing that be one of the things a big brave protector of the American people from the big bad Islamofascist terror threat would have done first?
If he's right, that the enemy remains active, deadly in its intent etc., then of course it's true that there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States. If they're as cunning and careful as he says of course they would have known crossing America's southern border was by far the best way to set up shop here. No wonder they can't find bin Laden in Pakistan -- he's living in a deserted Hopi village in the Mohave after he rode across the southern border on a camel and nobody noticed.
This wild incongruence between what he says and what he does is what makes people think they made the whole terrorist schtick up, or are exaggerating it mightily. If he was one tenth as worried about terrorism as he tries to make us be, he simply would not be leaving the easiest way in the world for them to come on in unaddressed.
{"commentId":1556978,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 11:36 PM EST{"commentId":1557021,"authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
Oh oh oh.. please go here.
The threats he is trying so hard to find out are the ones that are already here. The best thing he can do and the first thing he must do is to find ways to deal with those who are here as well as those who are based in Iraq's part of the world. Bill Clinton was trying to do this with the phone taps before 9/11 and the rep congress wouldn't let him do it. Just think if this had been in place. 9/11 could have been thwarted and over 3,000 lives saved.
As for the border fence. I don't know what the helk is up with people about that. For heaven's sake! Get it up already! I know he tried a virtual fence - maybe that got past the dem congress more easily since they are anti- fence due to the perceived effect it would have on our relations with our neighbors but, sheesh! haven't we proven that we, the people, want and need it up? I mean, for heaven's sake, it was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report!
{"commentId":1557021,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
{"commentId":1557124,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
Megan To Pagan: The threats he is trying so hard to find out are the ones that are already here.
Why would you believe that takes a massive new high tech surveillance program? We've got legal surveillance systems coming out of our ears. We never needed this appalling thing to catch terrorists with. That's your first clue that the surveillance program has absolutely nothing to do with finding domestic terrorist threats.
Why would he try so hard to find the ones that are already here while ignoring their most likely path of entry so millions more can come? Do you see that the only explanations for that are either that he wants them to come in and set up shop, or the danger is vastly overblown? If you can think of some other explanation for George Bush's clear, open, obvious, persistent refusal to address a terrorist's most likely path of entry to the country than one of those two, I'd love to hear it.
Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to harrass Martin Luther King, Jane Fonda, and other people who opposed him politically. The NSA domestic spying program is Nixon's plan on steroids. He is spying on his political enemies. He has 900,000 names on the no fly list. If there are 900,000 terrorists in America we're all dead meat. And if there are 900,000 terrorists on a list somewhere, where are the arrests? Answer: there are not 900,000 terrorists in America. He's not the slightest bit concerned about terrorists getting in because he knows it's a trumped up threat to justify the horrific things he's doing to the Constitution to keep his party supreme and his rich friends happy. It's the only explanation that fits.
The best thing he can do and the first thing he must do is to find ways to deal with those who are here as well as those who are based in Iraq's part of the world.
No, the best thing he can do and the first thing he should have done, if he was actually concerned about some actual threat of terrorism that is, is secure the borders. This is very elementary. Why does it make sense to you that he ignores them while he's worrying about a place 7000 miles away? It doesn't make even a tiny little bit of sense. Seeing that is the first step anyone takes in walking away from George Bush so they can see what's happening here.
Just think if this had been in place. 9/11 could have been thwarted and over 3,000 lives saved.
You forget that there was more than adequate, nice high-tech surveillance in place then without this program, there is more than adequate nice high-tech surveillance now without this program, and there was also outstanding intelligence from all over the world, all of which gave the president abundant warning about 9/11 which he ignored. He could have done something -- he did nothing. You also assume that the 9/11 plot was hatched domestically, since you think the domestic spying program could have prevented it. Most people are pretty sure that the 9/11 hijackers used the middle east to organize it. This defense of the spying program isn't making a lot of sense either.
As for the border fence. I don't know what the helk is up with people about that. For heaven's sake! Get it up already! I know he tried a virtual fence - maybe that got past the dem congress more easily since they are anti- fence due to the perceived effect it would have on our relations with our neighbors but, sheesh! haven't we proven that we, the people, want and need it up? I mean, for heaven's sake, it was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report!
I didn't suggest a border fence. You're missing the point. All I did was ask why someone who claims he'll do anything to protect us from terrorists has stubbornly refused to address 3000 miles of easy access for terrorists. You answer sort of indirectly that poor George Bush is struggling against a Congress that won't cooperate with his noble intentions. he didn't "try a virtual fence" for goodness sake! He hasn't tried anything but everything he could think of to keep that border exactly like it is. You act like he's this helpless little soul who has too much respect for Congress' mighty power over him to cross them. George Bush has made it clear over and over again that he intends to do whatever he wants no matter what Congress says. He has said it over and over regarding the domestic surveillance program. He's not this obedient little soul who waits for permission. Do not blame that wide open border on a single person besides George Bush. It is open because he wants it open, period. You know as well as I do he could just as easily put troops there as in Iraq if he had a mind to. What I want you to tell me, without blaming the Dems since on 9/11, the Republicans were in power, is why the big savior of us poor helpless potential victims of terrorist didn't do that then and won't do it now?
{"commentId":1557124,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 1 vote
#9 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 12:45 AM EST{"commentId":1557141,"authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
I don't know. I agreed with you about the need for border security...
{"commentId":1557141,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
{"commentId":1557193,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
Can you try to explain why George Bush has done nothing about border security without blaming someone else besides him? If you can't, can you see that it is completely inconsistent with what he's told us about the surveillance program -- how he has to do that because he's worried about terrorism?
You can't be worried about terrorism and leave such a long border unprotected. Conclusion: he's not worried about terrorism. Now we try to explain that. All we can possibly come up with is he wants there to be another domestic terrorism incident, or it's just not the threat he's trying to convince everybody it is. I don't think he wants another terrorist incident. The only other explanation is he has used terrorism to scare us into accepting a whole lot of unacceptable things.
{"commentId":1557193,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1558618,"authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
How about this?
When he signed the Homeland Security Department budget surrounded by Arizona lawmakers last month, he approved $2.3 billion to tighten the borders and $3.7 billion to track down illegal immigrants and hold them until they are deported. He also increased resources to hike the number of agents.
Funding for border security has increased by 60 percent since Bush first took office, a sum that has resulted in more illegals being stopped and returned.
Does that help?
{"commentId":1558618,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
{"commentId":1559417,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
Well, it helps us get somewhere. So thank you.
That was in 2005. Three years later the border remains wide open to the terrorists who are supposedly lurking in every corner of the globe with sharpened scimitars waiting to slit our throats and drink our blood. All we've got in the article you linked is an effort to pretend they're doing something. It's classic bureaucratic blowing of smoke.
I work with fencing contractors often. A big enough company can easily put up fence to the tune of a tenth of a mile a day. All that money and all that posturing is baloney. Virtual fence my foot. Please. I'll give him virtual fence.
George Bush has absolutely no intention of securing that border because he knows very well it's not a national security issue, and no matter how politically popular it might make him, if he does fence it Mexico will be furious and might not sell us its oil, or maybe they won't help the CIA drug runners keep their business flowing, or any number of things a secure border would mean that George Bush and his friends wouldn't like. So they keep throwing us these crumbs and we keep gobbling them up. We've got to stop letting him play us for chumps like this.
Remember: it was way too important to the president's goal of stopping terrorists in their tracks to bother with the FISA laws. I can't imagine something like keeping milliions of unidentified people stream into the country could possibly be less important than that scam that everybody knows doesn't do much to catch any bad guys even if that was its intention. That kind of thing is very iffy. Putting a stop to millions of people from all over the world streaming freely across the border makes a lot more sense. If they're worried enough about terrorism to spy on us no matter how illegal it is, and to confiscate shampoo and fingerprint everybody who flies in and out of the country it simply does not make sense that they are so unconcerned about that border.
Again, I'm not agitating for a fence. I'm just trying to point out what a pack of lies all the other things they're doing to us in the name of security are. The southern border gives the lie to all of it. If it's all lies somebody owes us some weapons grade explanations.
{"commentId":1559417,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1560060,"authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
George Bush has absolutely no intention of securing that border because he knows very well it's not a national security issue, and no matter how politically popular it might make him, if he does fence it Mexico will be furious and might not sell us its oil,
I'm confused here. I know that Bush hasn't done it, and that McCain (and this was a huge reason why the reps didn't want him as the nominee) doesn't really want to either, although he claims to see the light now and vows to do so, but I was under the impression that it was the dems who really didn't want it to happen due to the reasons (mostly relations with Mexico) that you quoted above.
Of course the borders are a national security issue. Attending to our borders was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report. It was shortly after this report that Bush did the above. And it did help. It just wasn't a fence. And surely we need a fence. I completely agree with you on that. But there are a lot of people, mostly dems including Obama and Clinton, who disagree with the need for it and who want to continue Bush's policy.
Oh wait, your argument is: Bush didn't build a fence, ergo there is no real threat? I think that's mabye too simplistic. Too much of a leap considering the evolution of thought regarding terrorism and our defenses to it. Our understanding of all of this is still evolving. Maybe someday there will be a fence. Or maybe not. Either way, I am of the opinion that there should be. I believe that the threat is real. There are terrorist cells in our country and around the world. And phone taps seem a reasonable line of defense, as they did to Clinton before 9/11. And, BTW, the 9/11 attackers were living in the US for several months before 9/11. They planned and coordinated a lot right here in the US. They even got their flight training here. And some of them came here from Mexico. Phone taps, had the republican congress allowed Clinton to pass the bill, could very well have saved us from 9/11. But we didn't believe the threat was real, sound familiar?
{"commentId":1560060,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"mmhuffaker"}
{"commentId":1563029,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
Megan To Pagan: I'm confused here. I know that Bush hasn't done it, and that McCain (and this was a huge reason why the reps didn't want him as the nominee) doesn't really want to either, although he claims to see the light now and vows to do so, but I was under the impression that it was the dems who really didn't want it to happen due to the reasons (mostly relations with Mexico) that you quoted above.
I wish I knew where that impression comes from. Set the fence aside for a moment. 9/11 happened in 2001. The Republicans were in power in Congress, and had been for many years. The Dems couldn't have stopped Bush from building a fence if he'd wanted one, and given his position on the NSA surveillance program, and given that a monkey can see the border is far more vulnerable to terrorism than cell phone conversations are, if he was actually concerned about protecting us from terrorism he would have closed the border before he did the spying on us thing. In the unlikely event his Republican juggernaut in Congress opposed him on it he would have done it anyway and if the Dems had opposed it he would have laughed at them. That's how this man works. He uses protecting us from terrorism to excuse what he wants to do for reasons totally unrelated to protecting anybody from anything. If he wanted to close the border that's exactly what he would have done and he would have had a far stronger case for it than he has for that spy program of his. I don't know how it could be clearer: he doesn't want it closed, period. Don't blame this on the Dems. Don't blame this on John McCain. Put the blame where it belongs: right squarely at George Bush's feet.
So yes. Ergo, he's not the slightest bit concerned about terrorism.
But there are a lot of people, mostly dems including Obama and Clinton, who disagree with the need for it and who want to continue Bush's policy.
Now all you have to do is break yourself of believing that the Dems could have possibly gotten anything done, get anything done now, or prevent anything from being done, without full Republican support. They have their famous tiny majority now in Congress but they still need Republican support no matter what they want to do. Plenty of Republicans are as strongly opposed to closing the southern border as any Democrat is. The easiest way to break yourself of blaming the Dems for everything is to just stop worrying about which party is responsible for anything, good or bad. Blame individual members of Congress for their individual votes, period. It's more work, but you'll be better informed. When you are tempted to blame the Dems when something goes wrong, pinch yourself and soon you'll be free of that impulse.
See, you and I fighting about which party did this or that bad thing keeps us nice and distracted from who the real bad guys are. The real bad guys are sprinkled throughout both parties. The really, really bad guys call themselves Republicans but they really aren't. They just do that because it's handy. All authentic, old-line, traditional Republicans should be every bit as mad at these people as any Democrat, but you guys are really, really dragging your feet. Get with the program. We're running out of time. It's you and me against them. It's not you and me against each other. It never was and anyone who tells you it is – that's your enemy.
Oh wait, your argument is: Bush didn't build a fence, ergo there is no real threat? I think that's mabye too simplistic.
He's a pretty simplistic guy once you crack the code.
Too much of a leap considering the evolution of thought regarding terrorism and our defenses to it. Our understanding of all of this is still evolving.
This sounds like something I hear a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's along the lines of "I just think there are things that the president knows about this that will always be secret from us peasants." Don't sell yourself short. They count on us falling for that. It's simply not true. You're fully capable of drawing the right conclusions. You really don't have to be a fly on the wall in the White House or Langley or anything like that. There is one secret they'd really like to keep though: most of this isn't real hard to figure out.
And phone taps seem a reasonable line of defense, as they did to Clinton before 9/11.
Phone taps have always been a reasonable line of defense, long before Clinton. The NSA program isn't mere phone taps. If it were there wouldn't be a problem, since phone taps are quite legal and have been for a very long time.
Phone taps, had the republican congress allowed Clinton to pass the bill, could very well have saved us from 9/11.
I have heard this before and it's so startlingly inaccurate I just wonder how it keeps getting repeated. I assume people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are saying it but I don't know for sure. Where does this come from? It's utterly false. I would love to know who's circulating it. Try to identify who has misinformed you so despicably. Find them, punch them in the nose, and don't ever listen to anything they say ever again.
Phone taps were fully in place when the hijackers were living here. Obviously they didn't do much. I don't know what kind of a stupid terrorist would say anything about plans to do terrorist things on the telephone given the whole phone taps thing, but I digress. Besides phone taps, we had all kinds of countries around the world warning us about 9/11. We had our own internal warnings about it. The president was warned repeatedly about it in plenty of time to take defensive action. You tell me why he didn't. But don't doubt he could have for a minute and don't take my word for it. It's out there for anyone who wants to know.
There's no new thing we need to do to be forewarned. No new spy program, no new laws deceptively called the Patriot Act, no new way to do things that coincidentally weaken the republic and the people's power over their government. We just need someone in the Oval Office with better judgment. That's what would have prevented 9/11.
But we didn't believe the threat was real, sound familiar?
It does indeed. And the threat to all we hold dear is greater than it's ever been, largely due to the various anti-democracy things we've allowed the President & Co. to put in place out of fear of things besides them. I don't believe the threat from Muslim terrorists, regardless of how much the war in Iraq has empowered them, is nearly as much of a threat as that is.
{"commentId":1563029,"threadId":"230548","contentId":"1348526","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 1 vote
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"230548","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
