Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Well, I hope it was unfounded.
1 posted on 05/28/2004 9:14:34 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: FairOpinion

Crying wolf to cover their butts.


2 posted on 05/28/2004 9:16:28 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion

What cities?


3 posted on 05/28/2004 9:23:05 PM PDT by Selene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion

Ashcroft needs to chill.


5 posted on 05/28/2004 9:25:36 PM PDT by OneTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
Sounds more like someone got caught. Again.

/john

7 posted on 05/28/2004 9:31:42 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Soy el jefe de la cocina. No disguta conmigo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
relax. This is from the New York Times. In other news, the NYT is still proud of the Pulitzers it won in the 1930's for a series of articles about what a nice guy Joseph Stalin was. A long tradition of journalistic excellence...
8 posted on 05/28/2004 9:34:10 PM PDT by Bernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion

Ashcroft and Ridge have a huge responsibility on their shoulders. We shouldn't be surprised if some mistakes are made.

Who would want to be in their position to make that judgment call whether to issue urgent alerts or not? If we were in on some of the intelligence reports they get, probably all of us would have the whole nation under urgent alert everyday.


10 posted on 05/28/2004 9:44:20 PM PDT by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
Where the hell is Ridge? Isn't he supposed to be the head of "Homeland Security"? GW's post-9-11 national security feel-good session is in serious need of a reality check. I would feel a lot better if Ridge was busy under cover rooting out illegal immigrants (terrorists included), but this would of course be a joke.

In fact, IMO, GW's entire Homeland Security program is a farce. For example, since 9-11, how many pilots are armed? How many additional border guards have been placed? ow else has our border security been enhanced? Of course Afghanistan and Iraq have been briliant campaigns (until the time that the idiot PC police took over), but when are we going to do something about OUR BORDER SECURITY? Without this, everything else GW does is nothing but perfume on a pig.

11 posted on 05/28/2004 9:45:55 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion

Damed if they do, damed if they don't. IIRC wasn't it the 9/11 Commission complaining about the FBI not notifying the proper officials of a threat? I wouldn't want to be in their shoes in this POLITICAL SEASON. As if "The New York Times" should be complaining about anyone making a mistake or getting information wrong.

I am afraid, if I was in the FBI, that I would be tempted to contact TERRORISTS and point them in the direction of the UN and THE NEW YORK TIMES.


13 posted on 05/28/2004 9:54:48 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
More concocted "news". No source, no names, no nothing.
14 posted on 05/28/2004 10:08:11 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
This "Homeland Security" stuff is a joke. It is little more than an excuse to expand the power of the federal gov't and it's control over our lives.

Your gov't cannot protect you, nor do they have a legal duty to do so (you can't sue them if they fail to protect you). Anyway, if they wanted to do so, the first thing they would do is to seal off the borders to prevent illegals from coming here. Securing one large outer perimeter is much easier than attempting to secure tens of thousands of smaller, interior ones.

Since they have failed to do so (and apparently have no desire to do so) people are ultimately responsible for their own safety. As such, I avoid large crowds (which is easy since I don't like people anyway). In the event of a chemical attack, I plan to get outside and simply head upwind. In the event of something more "personal", my Mossberg and my SIG are up to the task of dealing with it.

16 posted on 05/28/2004 10:20:33 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Torie; ambrose; AntiGuv

Not smart


24 posted on 05/29/2004 3:11:37 AM PDT by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
The official, citing questions about the credibility of the terrorist intelligence from the bureau, said, "It's getting harder and harder to defend them."

Well I'll tell you what, Mr. anonymous city official, why don't you go it alone then without the help of the feds.

Geez, should the FBI have ignored info that an attack was imminent within 24 hours while they took the time to check the sources? When time is that limited, they HAVE to take it seriously before they investigate the legitimacy of the claim.

25 posted on 05/29/2004 5:43:18 AM PDT by alnick (Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's husband wants teh-rayz-ah your taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson