America deploys missiles around airports/CIA believes threat exaggerated

[DoYouEverWonder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1112413,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday December 24, 2003

The US has deployed anti-aircraft missiles around Washington and other possible terrorist targets in fear of another attack using a commercial plane, but there is disagreement among intelligence officials about how direct the threat is to America.

Tom Ridge, the head of US homeland security, put the country on high alert on Sunday, warning of a possible attack over the holiday season on a par with the September 11 attacks, or even more devastating.

<snip>

US officials have insisted that there is unanimity within the administration over the credibility of its intelligence on this occasion, but one intelli gence source in Washington said that some CIA officials believed that Mr Ridge had exaggerated the threat to the US.

"There has been a lot of dissent about this," said the source, who has close contact with CIA officials. "There isn't any substantiated information about an attack on the United States itself. Everything seems to point towards an attack on Saudi Arabia or the Arabianpeninsula."

So if the CIA thinks Ridge is exaggerating, then where is Ridge getting his intel from? Those self-made experts who are flooding the internet with disinformation?

[Triana]

1. once again...

The White House IGNORES the intel community. Does *anyone feel safer NOW?

I don't!

[MidwestTransplant]

2. Here's where

The Intel bureau in the DOD that Rummy and Cheney set up to feed information they wanted on WMDs.

[VelmaD]

19. I believe the name you're looking for...

is the Office of Special Plans.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Cherry picking again or it's an inside job

I'm sorry..these stupid fucknuts still don't have the anthrax killer even though a limited number of people had access to anthrax??? Can we believe a word they say?

[pinto]

4. Reuters edited their latest reports to delete references to al Qaeda....re

Air France cancellations.

[pinto]

9. clarification: Reuters publically notified web press of edit....n/t

[leftchick]

5. proves you right DYEW......

You should post a new thread all about those private "intel" groups too!

[Malva Zebrina]

7. gee, that's a pretty handsome guy there in that picture

hmmm--very, very attractive.

[laruemtt]

18. heh, heh, heh...

he IS the stuff dreams are made of, isn't he......

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. I'm working on it

In between trying to pay attention to my family being that it's Christmas and all that.

But don't worry, I intend to stay on this story so more people know what is behind this crap. Thanks for the support.

[leftchick]

12. I am juggling sick kids and cranky husband....

and hopping on the computer when I can. I appreciate all of your work DYEW, and believe this story is HUGE!

[joanski01]

6. I'm glad that the CIA

is leaking out that there isn't any substantiated information about an attack on the US. The bushies* are costing us so much money with this crap. What the heck did they tell the French to make them cancel their flights? The exact flight number that would be hit. Maybe it's just Rummy trying to get even.

[MattNC]

10. who cares

it's just the CIA - not like they know what they're doing or anything.;-)

[madrchsod]

11. tooth fairy

or tinker bell, could be either one...

[davidinalameda]

13. I'm moving to Canada

the biggest terror threats we have are the Bushies

[leftchick]

14. "Is the bush* Administration Exaggerating Security Threats?" POLL!

A poll you will not find at Cnn/MSRNC/Faux....

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

LOL...I Love Aljazeera...

[0007]

15. I find more news in Aljazeera than in most American rags -

72% believe the Administration is pulling our leg again!

[Nile]

16. How does "The Guardian" get all this information from the CIA?

Just curious. "Believe it or Not"?

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The Guardian still practices journalistic integrity

and is a very reliable source for news. When a publication such has the Guardian states that their info is from CIA sources, you can be assured that they wouldn't publish such a statement unless it was true (to the best of their knowledge) and that when they use 'unnamed' sources that the information was confirmed by at least two separate sources. Unlike, FAUX & Co. who no longer care about the rules of journalism, the Guardian still lives by them.

[PATRICK]

20. Win-win

Full benefit plus sigh of relief and credibility if the terrorists make their point right in another weak spot we desire for oil. So perfect even if you side with the CIA it is hard to put the most cynical face on it. Damn nigh irresistible a pose for this administration and who wants to question someone putting our safety first?

Considering the French scrambling there very much seems some attempt by the terrorists, feint or sideshow though it may be. Almost useless to grumble about this. Some in Bushco really lust for some bigger credentials for the fear campaign. Such attiitudes and plausible misdirection or ignoring can indeed MIHOP but it can be nearly subconscious and invisible. They won't even know in their one track approach when the line is crossed.

You can thank God and keep praying for the field ops who are the ones really doing the job. They are invisible too.