I see it as more of a “CYA” gesture than a scare tactic. If a terrorist attack happened without any kind of warning, the gov’t would be blamed heavily for it. By contrast, if it were preceded by some kind of warning, the gov’t would get credit for telling people about it in advance. It also works if no terrorist attack occurs. If nothing happens after a warning, the gov’t gets credit for preventing another attack.
On the other hand, it’s true that terrorist groups have been desperate to attack on American soil for years now and haven’t been successful. The gov’t does deserve the credit but it’s difficult since everything has to remain top-secret.
not saying i’m sure what i believe, but it’s worth checking out some of the info on those 9/11 conspiracy sites,
some of the more down to earth ones do put forward compelling arguments
anyway… doesn’t america still have plenty of weapons of mass destruction?
it’d be ironic if some small country threatened military action unless the US disarm their WMDs, because they ‘might’ use them
i think what’s funny is people are like “since Bush is in office, we haven’t had ANOTHER terrorist attack”
like that’s a good thing (it is) but I mean, COME ON… what about the one that DID happen?
Is it so fucked up that we are thankfull for each day we DONT’ get attacked, and as long as that happens, Bush is doing good?
By that logic Clinton did great (sure the Cole, but I mean, as far as I’m concerned our troops stationed in other countries are FAIR GAME, that’s the way war, and you know occupying places, works)
You got to understand for the most part when people come up with these attack ideas, they usually are based off nothing at all. They are shooting themselves in the foot when the government raises the countries warning level, because it just hurts the everything that they are trying to improve (job growth, consumer trust) I’m not saying that there will never be an attack, but raising a terror level does nothing but scare people. That is the only thing it will ever accomplish.
