Did anyone NOT see this coming?

[SirFozzie]

-- Homeland Security chief to warn of possible al Qaeda attack to
influence U.S. elections, administration official tells CNN.

Call me a cynic, but this looks like big time Fearmongering (which seems to be the Bush et all standard proceedure)

[SirFozzie]

From the CNN story:

Prior to Ridge's statement, an administration official said an attack might precede the November elections.

No new specific intelligence exists, however, and Ridge did not raise the national color-coded threat level beyond the yellow, or elevated, level.

It was not immediately clear how the assessment of existing intelligence has led Ridge to his remarks.

Oh yeah. big time scaremongering. Wag the Dog.

[Swaggs]

That was my first thought, too.

Although I hope it is not the case, it is an effective way to steal the headlines back from the Edwards announcement.

[CamEdwards]

That was my first thought, too.

Although I hope it is not the case, it is an effective way to steal the headlines back from the Edwards announcement.

If that were the case, wouldn't they have done this on Tuesday?

And I noticed that the British inquiry into claims that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger hasn't exactly topped the news cycles today.

[SirFozzie]

the question is why they did it at all Cam. Even Homeland Security indicates there is no new intelligence. Why now? Because the Demos are gaining momentum? Because Edwards appears to be the Anti-Cheney? Or is there REAL reason to fear an attack prior to November?

So far, I see no reason besides election fearmongering, to release such a snensationalist story.

[Huckleberry]

And I noticed that the British inquiry into claims that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger hasn't exactly topped the news cycles today.

What are you saying here?

[sachmo71]

Fear is a weapon, and a tool. Eventually, we will grow numb to this too. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing.

[Rizon]

In related news


WOLF KILLS SHEEP

Thursday, July 8, 2004 Posted: 8:01 AM EDT (1201 GMT)

RELATED
• Boy: But I Was Telling The Truth
• Two sheep dogs share tragedy
• Mother, daugher make due with ruined wool

SPECIAL REPORT
• Inside the Village
• Village Reaction
• Global Impact
• CNN/Money: Rebuilding the Herd
• War in the Prarie
• Special Report

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Boy
Sheep
Wolf
I like Santa
or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?

VILLAGEVILLE, Faraway (CNN) -- 44 sheep were killed by a rabid wolf today, as watcher is ignored, according to a villager spokesperson in Villageville.


There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Not that I think anyone is lying :D , but this is similar. Eventually people will get tired of these warnings and start to ignore them. Then the terrorists strike.

[gstelmack]

Also from the CNN article:

Ridge cited "recent interdictions" for the new warning.

So there are indications. Sounds like we're stopping stuff/people from entering the country and are concerned about what they might be doing.

A senior administration official said accusations of scaremongering are to be expected. But the official, who has read Ridge's prepared remarks, added, "This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don'ts, and our default is 'do.' "

This is a key point as well. If an attack occurs, everyone is going to scream "why didn't you warn us?" So, now you get way too many warnings.

[Subby]

This is the type of thread that makes Kerry-supporters (of which I am one) look like a bunch of cynical conspiracy theorists.

I think we would be better served if we stopped looking for the bogeyman around every corner and started focusing on concrete issues that will make a difference in the upcoming election...

[SirFozzie]

Why do Kerry supporters look cynical, maybe, because of things like this? (from today's New Republic)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Full article Here (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904)

[Subby]

Well, ok... ;)

[NoMyths]

I think fearmongering is a very concrete issue. These days, the average American is being terrorized more by the Bush administration than by any sort of terrorist attack.

[Subby]

I think fearmongering is a very concrete issue. These days, the average American is being terrorized more by the Bush administration than by any sort of terrorist attack.*Someone* just watched Bowling for Columbine again... ;)

[Senator]

I never saw this coming. :)

[Schmidty]

Edit: Bleh. I'm too preachy sometimes.

[SirFozzie]

Darn. Wish I knew what you said ;)

Seriously, I'm an independent (vote about 60/40 Democrat/Republican, voted for Mitt Romney), but.. something about the last couple years... Ugh. I know that we had the article about how we AREN'T truly divided when it comes to politics, but Bush.. urrrghhh.. their seems to be MORE election shenanigans each time around

[Glengoyne]

This is the type of thread that makes Kerry-supporters (of which I am one) look like a bunch of cynical conspiracy theorists.

I think we would be better served if we stopped looking for the bogeyman around every corner and started focusing on concrete issues that will make a difference in the upcoming election...
Amen

[panerd]

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

... The new threat? No.
...The CamEdwards spin in this thread? No.
Just waiting for JoninMiddleGa and Cam to explain how this all ties into the evil NEA.

[Dutch]

Didn't YOU PEOPLE ask for more information from the "way too secretive Bush Adminsitration"?

While the right is working hard to win the war on terror, the left seems content to win the war of whine.

[Subby]

While the right is working hard to win the war on terror, the left seems content to win the war of whine. Your arguments would be a lot more effective if you would stop making sweeping general statements about half of the people in this country...

[Anthony]

44 sheep killed were killed by a rabit wolf today

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Please - anything but the rabit wolf!!! Normal wolves I can take - but rabit wolves?!?!? We're doomed!!!!

[Chubby]

Didn't YOU PEOPLE ask for more information from the "way too secretive Bush Adminsitration"?

While the right is working hard to win the war on terror, the left seems content to win the war of whine.

Working hard how? There's nothing new or credible to warrant this warning. All it is about is IF something happens before the election then Bush can say "Look we warned you". There's no information here, get it straight.

Wow, takes a real genius to think the elections may be a target of terrorists. Get back to me when you have more than throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.

[CamEdwards]

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

... The new threat? No.
...The CamEdwards spin in this thread? No.
Just waiting for JoninMiddleGa and Cam to explain how this all ties into the evil NEA.

Damn. Forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion about political matters any more.

[Anthony]

Your arguments would be a lot more effective if you would stop making sweeping general statements about half of the people in this country...

that's one thing i hate about FOF politics - these huge generalizations. ugh.

[gstelmack]

Working hard how? There's nothing new or credible to warrant this warning. All it is about is IF something happens before the election then Bush can say "Look we warned you". There's no information here, get it straight.
As I listed above, quoted from the CNN article:

Ridge cited "recent interdictions" for the new warning.

[Anthony]

As I listed above, quoted from the CNN article:

Ridge cited "recent interdictions" for the new warning.



ok, i'll bite. this is the 2nd time you wrote "interdictions".

what the hell is it.

[Chubby]

As I listed above, quoted from the CNN article:

Ridge cited "recent interdictions" for the new warning.



Which are what exactly? His gut feeling? This means NOTHING, go look up interdiction on dictionary.com .

"He said U.S. officials have no precise knowledge of the time, place or method of attack, but said they are 'actively working to gain that knowledge.' "

They know nothing and are merely covering their own ass in case something happens.

[chinaski]

Didn't YOU PEOPLE ask for more information from the "way too secretive Bush Adminsitration"?

While the right is working hard to win the war on terror, the left seems content to win the war of whine.

This terror alert gives us zero information. Its the exact same thing they say every 3 weeks... "be very scared!".

[Maple Leafs]

I think fearmongering is a very concrete issue. These days, the average American is being terrorized more by the Bush administration than by any sort of terrorist attack.These days, the average American isn't being terrorized by terrorists very much at all.

Um, that's a good thing, right?

[gstelmack]

Which are what exactly? His gut feeling? This means NOTHING, go look up interdiction on dictionary.com .
I'm assuming it means they stopped some stuff / people at the border and are nervous about what the stuff was going to be used for / people were going to do.

"He said U.S. officials have no precise knowledge of the time, place or method of attack, but said they are 'actively working to gain that knowledge.' "
What is wrong with this? They have information that something is up, they just don't know what, where, or when. I don't see the contradiction.

They may not have as much information as all of you would like, but that doesn't mean they don't have any, or enough to warn people to be a bit more vigilant. But it is patently false to say they don't have any information at all to back up this warning.

[sachmo71]

Well I think if the government had actually arrested terrorists coming into the country or seized some stuff at the border, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

Maybe "interdictions" is being used because it's a cool word? Or maybe as in the context of intelligence?

[Chubby]

I'm assuming it means they stopped some stuff / people at the border and are nervous about what the stuff was going to be used for / people were going to do.


What is wrong with this? They have information that something is up, they just don't know what, where, or when. I don't see the contradiction.

They may not have as much information as all of you would like, but that doesn't mean they don't have any, or enough to warn people to be a bit more vigilant. But it is patently false to say they don't have any information at all to back up this warning.
You know the old saying "when you assume..." except here it only makes an ass out of you :p They didn't stop anything. Go look up the definition.

They DON'T have information something is up, that is stated in the article if you'd like to actually read it instead of just piccking out sentences that you want.

[Chubby]

Well I think if the government had actually arrested terrorists coming into the country or seized some stuff at the border, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

Maybe "interdictions" is being used because it's a cool word? Or maybe as in the context of intelligence?

I think it's being used because people don't know what the hell it means and are too lazy too look it up but it sounds important.

[NoMyths]

It's because "interdictions" sounds more impressive than "one of the guys we've been listening in on lately was yelling about how he would really like to blow something up, if only he had the means to do so." Big difference between wanting to do something and being able to do something. Which seems to be illustrated in the fact that the terror alert level hasn't changed (which would be the administrative response, rather than just another anti-pep rally).

[Apathetic Lurker]

Quote
"44 sheep killed were killed by a rabit wolf today, as watcher is ignored, according to a villager spokesperson in Villageville."

mmm, gene splicing .......

next we'll hear about those pesky jackolopes infesting our pristine american suburbs :p

[Dutch]

Kerry and Edwards "have been briefed". Yet, I haven't heard either one say it was political banter. Hmmmm...

[NoMyths]

Dutch, they're both Senators. It would make sense that Senators would get updates about why the Homeland Security Department is giving press conferences.

[j51]

Liberals accuse government for failing to warn of 9/11 attacks. Government then releases warnings and alerts. Liberals accuse government of fearmongering.

You just can't win.

[Rizon]

Well, phooey, thats what I get for trying to put something together while getting interupted 100 times a minute at work :)

[KWhit]

I liked it Rizon.

[SFL Cat]

I think fearmongering is a very concrete issue. These days, the average American is being terrorized more by the Bush administration than by any sort of terrorist attack.

:rolleyes:

[gstelmack]

You know the old saying "when you assume..." except here it only makes an ass out of you :p They didn't stop anything. Go look up the definition.
You mean like this one:

To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy's advance.
Or this one:

To confront and halt the activities, advance, or entry of
Gee, that took all of 30 seconds. I'll refrain from calling you names in return, 'cause I'm such a nice guy :D

They DON'T have information something is up, that is stated in the article if you'd like to actually read it instead of just piccking out sentences that you want.
Correct, they don't. They have apparently intercepted something that makes them worried. For example, they've given warnings in the past when the level of communications among terrorist groups / cells increases, a possible signal that something is being coordinated. Hence the use of "interdict" and the mention that they do not have "specific intelligence". Again, they think something might be up, but they aren't sure what specifically it is.

All of that gibes with what they are saying.

[SFL Cat]

Although I'm a registered Democrat, I can't really say I've voted for Democrats on a national level since Jimmy Carter (and after four years of him, I felt pretty stupid). My values have always been pretty conservative, and the positions the national Democratic Party tends to take are usually on the opposite side of where I stand on the issues. I voted for Reagan twice; for Bush I twice (having lived in Arkansas, I knew exactly what we'd get from Bubba Clinton as Pres and I wasn't disappointed). I haven't really voted in the presidential race since Clinton won in his first term because Dole left me cold, and I didn't really see Dubyah as having a chance to win in 2000.

Even though I don't buy Bush's whole bill of goods, I'm glad he held the reigns after 9/11. I think the country is heading in more-or-less the right direction -- even though most liberals and secularist don't seem to think so. Thanks to all the outright propoganda I've seen (Michael Moore's movie, the mainstream media, and rhetoric from most liberal Democrats) that have only one purpose -- get rid of Dubya -- my political interest has been rekindled like it hasn't been since Reagan ran during the 1980 election. I went and registered down here in Palm Beach County, Florida and I plan on voting for Bush and whoever his veep candidate is (the only Democrat I might have considered voting for was Lieberman). To all the libs on this board...thanks for rekindling my interest in the democratic process.

[Schmidty]

Fozzie, you should have made this a political thread, as it would have incited all of the Zombies.

Oh, wait.......

[Ryan S]

I have skimmed over this thread, as I am not really interested in reading what I know this thread will turn into, but I am not suprised that Homeland Security is worried about terrorism before the election.

I don't think it is a matter of "if", rather it is a matter of "when" and "where". I am fairly confident something devastating will happen in the week or two before the election, though I would suggest that if the terrorists did such a thing in the USA, it would more likely have the effect of guaranteeing a Bush win than it would help Kerry. (Though that may be what they want)

[Tekneek]

Democrats bringing up the ideas of fearmongering, headline-stealing, and wag the dog are just reading from the same playbook that had Republicans outraged that Clinton would go after Osama during the height of the Lewinsky scandal.

[Chubby]

You mean like this one:


Or this one:


Gee, that took all of 30 seconds. I'll refrain from calling you names in return, 'cause I'm such a nice guy :D


Correct, they don't. They have apparently intercepted something that makes them worried. For example, they've given warnings in the past when the level of communications among terrorist groups / cells increases, a possible signal that something is being coordinated. Hence the use of "interdict" and the mention that they do not have "specific intelligence". Again, they think something might be up, but they aren't sure what specifically it is.

All of that gibes with what they are saying.


And those definitions mean nothing. I looked it up when the article was posted and the quote is jibberish.

Nowhere does it say they interrcepted anything. See, that would actually be a "fact", something that is quite lacking in that news conference. If they had intercepted something, wouldn't that be specific intel? They're guessing, it's plain as day to see that.

I have no idea why Ridge would use interdiction execept to portray the idea that they actually have something when they don't. It's clear none of those definitions even remotely fit with "we have intel".

[Rizon]

I liked it Rizon.

Make sure you vote for me in June Madness 2004 Second Round Tan Division

[Arles]

ok, i'll bite. this is the 2nd time you wrote "interdictions".

what the hell is it.
interdictions are all we had tipping off 9-11

[Chubby]

interdictions are all we had tipping off 9-11

so we had nothing?

[Glengoyne]

Democrats bringing up the ideas of fearmongering, headline-stealing, and wag the dog are just reading from the same playbook that had Republicans outraged that Clinton would go after Osama during the height of the Lewinsky scandal.
Well gone after isn't exactly the way I'd put it. They lobbed a few missles in his general direction. While I'd argue that it wasn't an effective way to deal with Bin Laden, I really don't think most folks seriously think Clinton launched that attack purely out of opportunism.

It is funny to joke about, but honestly no one who is doing any critical thinking believes it was devised entirely as a distraction. They got intelligence good enough to act upon, right at a time when they were under considerable media scrutiny. It was just convenient timing. If they didn't have some sort of intelligence we would have heard about it by now. Launching cruise missles onto another country's soil is a much bigger deal than that. It is not something the president can just do on a whim.

In fact, I'd say it would have been a particularly bad time to "wag the dog".

[Tekneek]

While some Republicans went on the record in support of the missile launches against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan during that scandalous time, there were others who questioned it all even on the floor of the House. There were countless editorials about all of them being "wag the dog" incidents.

I'm just saying that no one should be surprised if some Democrats come out talking about that now. It should be expected. If a Democrat wins the Presidency, you can bet that some Republicans will make similar calls at some point.

[Bee]

Although I'm a registered Democrat, I can't really say I've voted for Democrats on a national level since Jimmy Carter (and after four years of him, I felt pretty stupid). My values have always been pretty conservative, and the positions the national Democratic Party tends to take are usually on the opposite side of where I stand on the issues. I voted for Reagan twice; for Bush I twice (having lived in Arkansas, I knew exactly what we'd get from Bubba Clinton as Pres and I wasn't disappointed). I haven't really voted in the presidential race since Clinton won in his first term because Dole left me cold, and I didn't really see Dubyah as having a chance to win in 2000.

Even though I don't buy Bush's whole bill of goods, I'm glad he held the reigns after 9/11. I think the country is heading in more-or-less the right direction -- even though most liberals and secularist don't seem to think so. Thanks to all the outright propoganda I've seen (Michael Moore's movie, the mainstream media, and rhetoric from most liberal Democrats) that have only one purpose -- get rid of Dubya -- my political interest has been rekindled like it hasn't been since Reagan ran during the 1980 election. I went and registered down here in Palm Beach County, Florida and I plan on voting for Bush and whoever his veep candidate is (the only Democrat I might have considered voting for was Lieberman). To all the libs on this board...thanks for rekindling my interest in the democratic process.

Why are you a registered democrat if you disagree with most of their opinions on the issues? Just curious...


As far as the terror warning... At this point, I think it's just a case of them not really knowing anything and coming out with a warning (just like they've done everytime a holiday comes up or a big celebration). If the terrorists attack another country, we get warnings to expect a similar attack here. With the attacks in Spain, it just makes sense that this is a possibility here. I don't see it as being some kind of political conspiracy, although the crying wolf analogy is probably accurate. I'd like to see them have more information before issuing a warning, but I also can see their point in doing so with the (IMO unjustified) criticism the administration has received for not being prepared for 9/11.

[gstelmack]

And those definitions mean nothing. I looked it up when the article was posted and the quote is jibberish.
From earlier:

They didn't stop anything. Go look up the definition.
I did look it up, and the word clearly means they either stopped or tried to stop something. About half the definitions on the dictionary.com page say that. The other half talk about putting blocks in place to prevent things from ever getting through, which I guess is the definition I'd choose to take if I was simply trying to paint what Ridge said as a lie.

Nowhere does it say they interrcepted anything. See, that would actually be a "fact", something that is quite lacking in that news conference. If they had intercepted something, wouldn't that be specific intel? They're guessing, it's plain as day to see that.
No, it would not necessarily be specific intel. Interdict could easily mean "We stopped known terrorist X from entering the country." It could easily mean "We stopped a shipment of boxcutters from <insert terrorist-sponsoring country here>." It could easily mean "We stopped a shipment of assault rifles." Any of a number of things that indicates SOMETHING might be going down soon, but not enough info to know WHAT. If they knew more than that something looks like it might be going down, then they'd have specific intel, but right now they just have pointers. And I have no problem with them not telling us WHAT they stopped, as that would give away vital info that might preclude us stopping similar items in the future.

I have no idea why Ridge would use interdiction execept to portray the idea that they actually have something when they don't. It's clear none of those definitions even remotely fit with "we have intel".
See, I choose to believe the definitions of these words that make sense in the context of what he says, rather than picking up versions that allow me to say that he's not making any sense. The point is that these words all have definitions that don't contradict each other, and that's why I think he chose them. It's very clear to me what he's saying, but if you choose to believe he's misleading everyone then yes you can pick this apart and twist it in ways that back up your beliefs.

[Chubby]

From earlier:


I did look it up, and the word clearly means they either stopped or tried to stop something. About half the definitions on the dictionary.com page say that. The other half talk about putting blocks in place to prevent things from ever getting through, which I guess is the definition I'd choose to take if I was simply trying to paint what Ridge said as a lie.


No, it would not necessarily be specific intel. Interdict could easily mean "We stopped known terrorist X from entering the country." It could easily mean "We stopped a shipment of boxcutters from <insert terrorist-sponsoring country here>." It could easily mean "We stopped a shipment of assault rifles." Any of a number of things that indicates SOMETHING might be going down soon, but not enough info to know WHAT. If they knew more than that something looks like it might be going down, then they'd have specific intel, but right now they just have pointers. And I have no problem with them not telling us WHAT they stopped, as that would give away vital info that might preclude us stopping similar items in the future.


See, I choose to believe the definitions of these words that make sense in the context of what he says, rather than picking up versions that allow me to say that he's not making any sense. The point is that these words all have definitions that don't contradict each other, and that's why I think he chose them. It's very clear to me what he's saying, but if you choose to believe he's misleading everyone then yes you can pick this apart and twist it in ways that back up your beliefs.

so they had a strong "To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy's advance. "? What the hell does that mean? That doesn't mean they have any intel.

It is clear to me that Ridge could have said "A giraffe whispered to us something that leads us to believe an attack is coming." and you'd be spouting off about how there's evidence to back it up.

It says in the ARTICLE that they don't have any concrete information. They have nothing. They're covering their ass in case something happens.

If they stopped X terrorist from entering the country then they'd be braodcasting it from the rooftops. If they stopped a shipment of something they'd have said it. See, that would be hard proof something is up, which they admitted in the article they DON'T HAVE.

You're desperate attempts to conjure up some false backing for Ridge's statement is a joke. Which is of course the reason why he said it, get people to form their own conclusions while actually saying nothing.

[gstelmack]

so they had a strong "To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy's advance. "? What the hell does that mean? That doesn't mean they have any intel.

It is clear to me that Ridge could have said "A giraffe whispered to us something that leads us to believe an attack is coming." and you'd be spouting off about how there's evidence to back it up.
See, you want to put words in my mouth just like you want to put them in Ridge's mouth. I explained this above. No, I wouldn't have believed that, but I do believe precisely what I stated above. Including the fact that "interdict" basically means to stop something from reaching its destination, either by putting blocks in place to prevent it from every starting the journey in the first place (the definition you seem to be latching on to, as that's the only way there would not actually have been something to interdict), or by physically catching it (the definition I think Ridge is using).

It says in the ARTICLE that they don't have any concrete information. They have nothing. They're covering their ass in case something happens.
I've explained above why I think it's possible for them to have information that indicates something will happen without knowing what. And that's exactly what Ridge is saying (interdictions gave us info something was up, but no hard intel with more details than that).

If they stopped X terrorist from entering the country then they'd be braodcasting it from the rooftops. If they stopped a shipment of something they'd have said it. See, that would be hard proof something is up, which they admitted in the article they DON'T HAVE.
Again, I explained why not above. Along with plenty of examples of things OTHER than terrorist X that could do this. I'll also point out that the Administration was getting reemed for NOT reporting the existance of "Prisoner X" not too long ago, when the reason they weren't reporting him was exactly the sort of intel-gathering reasons I stated above.

You're desperate attempts to conjure up some false backing for Ridge's statement is a joke. Which is of course the reason why he said it, get people to form their own conclusions while actually saying nothing.
I think it's the reverse. I think you're conjuring up desperate attempts to find definitions for these words that allow you to believe Ridge and the Administration are lying to you.

[GrantDawg]

Just thought I'd point out that Tom Daschle doesn't believe this is fear mongering:

Asked if the timing of the terror concerns might be aimed at stealing political thunder from the announcement of John Edwards as the democratic vice presidential candidate, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."

[Dutch]

But yet, the media planted the seed...