So Pakistan should stop hunting Al Q until after the November elections?

If they'd uncorked OBL, maybe I would smell a rate. This story by itself is page 3 stuff all the way.

(The conspiracy, though, could be flogged to page one...)

Why yes, Mark, that's our choice: either Pakistan stops hunting Al Q at all until November 3, or we let the GOP dictate the timing of a military operation to boost their own poll numbers. Those are our only two options.

I wish you folks could decie whether Bush is an evil genius or an incompetent fool. It gives those of us watching from the outside a sore neck trying to keep track of the arguments.

Bush is an incompetent fool. Rove and Cheney are evil geniuses.

I like the way that Pakistanis captured this guy earlier, but just happened to announce his capture during the convention. And the way that the accusation said that the Pakistanis were asked to specifically announce a high value capture *during* the convention (the dates were specified). So Mark, whether later would have been better, doesn't matter. The accusation was specific about the dates, and lo and behold ...

“you folks”?! C’mon, Mark, I’ve seen you be much more reasonable than to stoop to that kind of broad-brushing. You know that none of us here claim to or do speak for all liberals, Lefties, or (Ford forbid) Democrats.

For the record, whether Bush is either or neither is irrelevant. The point is that the previous post (http://triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/archives/2004/07/08/17.39.33/) mentioned that the gummint was leaning on Pakistan to deliver someone important during the DNC, and voila! they did.

Does anyone else thing the current terrorist alert is total bullshit? Way to get Kerry out of the limelight.

And I still havn't seen security on the DC metro. There was a picture of two cops with AR-15s on the metro printed on the first page of the "Metro" newspaper that the Post distributes free to people on the metro. a) like teams of cops with AR-15s are of any value (do they even have enough training with the things to use them without killing lots of by-standers?) b) photographs of guys with AR-15s are of even less value.

The current terrorist alert is much like the previous ones: both true and false at the same time.* “Be on high alert!” they cry, while at the same time insisting that we act normal and go about our usual business. Parse out the words, and what you get is creating a normalcy of high alert. If we’re on high alert, we shouldn’t do anything unusual, because we're supposed to only go about our normal business. If we don’t do anything unusual, we won’t stop to question the government or, Ford forbid, vote for the other guy.
“Just keep doing what we tell you and everything will be fine.” I just hope I live to see the day when our children or theirs put a firm and long-lasting stop to nonsense like this.

* That is, they may indeed have good intel that there are terrorists close to being able to strike the US (though I thought that was the point of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, to win the war on terrorism), but they also serve less honorable purposes. And you can’t tell them they’re lying, because they will say (inter alia) that you don’t know all that they know.

I disagree. I mean, I think it is politically convenient for the Wadministration to have this out there now. But anything they do between now and 11/2 will be. Can we really castigate them for failing to follow through on pre-9/11 intelligence, and then disbelieve specific information when it comes out? Look, I know they could be lying. But what if they're not? I'd rather not take that chance.

At least this information is "actionable" -- I know what areas to avoid. Or rather, what I should have been avoiding for the past three years. Or for the foreseeable future. Well, let's just put it this way: I'm not taking that tour of the NYSE any time soon.

I disagree. I mean, I think it is politically convenient for the Wadministration to have this out there now. But anything they do between now and 11/2 will be. Can we really castigate them for failing to follow through on pre-9/11 intelligence, and then disbelieve specific information when it comes out? Look, I know they could be lying. But what if they're not? I'd rather not take that chance.

At least this information is "actionable" -- I know what areas to avoid. Or rather, what I should have been avoiding for the past three years. Or for the foreseeable future. Well, let's just put it this way: I'm not taking that tour of the NYSE any time soon.

The questions are:

1. Is this evidence stronger or weaker than other pieces of evidence that previously did or did not trigger an alert. If this is above a consistent threshold, then it is more credible. If, on the other hand, it is weaker than evidence that had not triggered an alert (ceteris paribus) then we can suspect manipulation.

2. Is there more or less agreement within the administration on this alert than on previous alerts? This one seems to be very contentious.

3. What are other governments who got similar news doing? Well, the UK doesn't seem to be worried, and they've got a long history of issuing alerts. Same with South Africa, which was also in that intelligence.

What do we have? We know they cased several potential targets some 3-4 years ago. We know they would like to attack the US still. But we have no evidence that a plot against these targets is in the offing or that they have the capacity to do this (analysts argue that these are relatively hard targets to hit).

What we know is that they want to hit somewhere in the US, and that they once considered these targets, amongst others.

That's all. That's why even people within the administration are scratching their heads over this one.

Pakistan was happy to play along:

A proud Hayyat dubbed the arrest "another crowning success of Pakistan's security apparatus in the fight against terrorism." But it is doubtful Hayyat was really addressing his fellow Pakistanis: He made the announcement at midnight. More likely, his intended audience was half a world away--in the United States, where, in the middle of the afternoon, John Kerry was preparing to deliver his nomination speech to the Democratic National Convention.

Well, this continues to get increasingly complex and interesting. Now, it appears the person from whom the intelligence came may have been a turned A-Q hacker who was helping either the ISI (Pakistan) or the Brits. Another cover blown (cf, Plame) in the name of political brinkmanship? Or the Bourne Identity playing out in real life? Perhaps its just a Disney-esque mixup with a VW Beetle that has a mind of its own. (Or maybe a mule that can kick field goals -- anyone? Ten Ish points if you can name that movie.)

I dunno. But just because it's a campaign season doesn't mean Team W gets to blow the fear horn whenever they want to. Scrutinize the shiite out of them, I say. They've led more than enough dodgy spintangos to merit a less-than-credulous response (cf, aluminum tubes, smoking-mushroom-gunclouds, toxic gas over WTC site "totally safe!"). Just because you're not wearing a tin foil hat doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Here's the familiar chart now updated to show how terror alerts are connected to W's approval rating. Also, below that, note the timeline assembled by this pair of bloggers. Their conclusions (without saying the alerts are politically motivated):

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

Brits show disdain for US Orange Alert:

Meanwhile, the Bush administration leaks information to press that damages the British attempts to capture A-Q members, in an effort to justify the raised alert levels:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109203103143466382

Politics, or not?