August 03, 2004

NYT Discounts Current Terror Preps

The New York Times seems to have a problem with the fact that some of the information used to determine the current elevated risk status was years old, some of it from before September 11, 2001.

What tweaks my yayas on this is the very notion that the numbskulls at the NYT are openly trying to politicize the latest threat preparations/precautions because the "info was 3 years old" and in our possession but not acted on for that long.

These people have got to realize that a lot of this data was incomplete or inconclusive until they got the hard-drive from computer in Afghanistan/Pakistan last week. I guess that drive was like the mother-lode of corroborative information. Not to mention the common knowledge that Al Quaida is a very patient and methodical enemy.

Al Quaida and their affiliated groups do nothing without intense preparation, regardless of the amount of time it takes. Look at the time-frame involved in the multi-pronged attack that brought down the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and took the lives of the passengers and crew in that open field in Pennsylvania. That wasn't something cooked up overnight. Those people were actively involved in planning, preparation, and execution for years.

The fact that this information is three years old says nothing except that it is more immanent now than it was when we first received it. It is like a poisonous fruit that ripens over years, and it is reasonable to believe that it is ripening now.

The very thought that someone, anyone, at the NYT doesn't realize that or is trying to cast such blatant dispersion for purely political reasons is truly appalling. It's irresponsible journalism, and an egregious abuse of the public trust. Millions of people in the potentially affected area use that paper as their main source of information. Thousand, no, tens of thousands of people could be directly affected by any attack on the New York City proper, Newark, or DC, and the NYT owes it to these people to relegate its politics to the Editorial Page, not Page One.

Posted by Mamamontezz at August 3, 2004 05:44 PM

It's nice to see that the Times is still consistent in their coverage. They're simply incredible.

Posted by: Jack at August 3, 2004 11:29 PM

al-Qaeda took over 5 years to plan 9/11. Remember when liberals tried to blame 9/11 on Bush because a 1 page PID from 1998 mentioned the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking airplanes and a suspicion they might try and bomb Federal buildings in NYC? Now the very smae linerals nad the Times are whining about the intel used to issue this warning. the Times did leave out the fact that this intel was recently updated and that is what made the Administration issue the warning. This was very specific intel.

Il Calamaro Grande

Posted by: A Sailor in the Desert at August 4, 2004 12:38 AM

poker me up

Posted by: poker me up at December 30, 2004 02:45 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?