Hang on! It's the fear factor again. So what are they up to?

[orleans]

they're speeding up the heartbeat of the country by talking about "getting hit" again

yeah, we know we could--we've known it for years now because of the crappy job they're doing "protecting" the country from another terror attack.

So why bring it up now?
what's going on behind the scenes? what are they up to now that they have to get the heart rate going? what are they hiding or trying to distract us from? iraq? gannon?

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4206332/detail.html


Officials: Only A 'Matter Of Time' For Terror Attack
Rumsfeld, Goss Tell Congress Of Looming Threats

POSTED: 10:46 pm CST February 16, 2005
UPDATED: 10:47 pm CST February 16, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's top intelligence and military officials say terrorists are regrouping for possible new strikes against the U.S.

Although few specifics were offered, the officials fanned out through a battery of congressional hearings to argue in favor of the president's military and anti-terror spending plans.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the government can reasonably predict attacks from terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and other means. But he says the administration's $419 billion defense package will both fight the war in Iraq and "attack its ideological underpinnings."

CIA Director Porter Goss said the fighting in Iraq is providing terrorists with experience and contacts. And he said "it may be only a matter of time" before chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons are used on U.S. soil.

[punpirate]

1. My guess is that...

... because they're talking budgets, they don't want any scrutiny of the budget (including the supplementals which are, effectively off the books).

As for Rumsfeld saying that the government can "reasonably predict attacks," I don't think their track record on that account is very good (obviously), but they want Congress to think the people's money is being well-spent.

This is all about keeping the spigot open, I think. Additionally, they might be setting up Congress for more of the "just give us the money and don't expect us to tell you how it's being spent" routine they've adopted in the last four years.

[LittleClarkie]

5. When all is said and done

and the shit hits the fan, or shall we say, the rest of the country wakes up when these guys are out of office and disgraced, how are they going to spin it so that it's the Democrats fault? They're going to say we should have stopped the maniac, aren't they. I can here it now. "What was Congress doing all this time?" Somehow, some way, they'll find a way to make it all Clinton's fault.

[Hissyspit]

2. I said it was only a matter of time before we got hit (again) when Bush...

first took office. Glad to see they are catching up.

What are they trying to distract us from? Iraq? Gannon? Try all of the above and get us ready for Iran and Syria. Syria to Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan. A belt across Islamic southern Asia. I pointed that out on a map to my students before the Iraq war started. I was only half kidding. I was hoping I was wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

3. Now wait a cotton pickin' minute

"the fighting in Iraq is providing terrorists with experience and contacts"?

I thought their spin, as recently as a month ago, was that we'd weakened Al Queda and the insurgents through our victories in Iraq. Their infrastructure was supposed to be disorganized, most of their leaders gone. Now they're making Iraq sound like a training ground for terrorists. While that's probably closer to the truth, what the hell?

All of a sudden, it's as if they're arguing that what they've done so far is an utter failure. So more money will fix it? That sounds like a "liberal" way to fix the problem. Throw more money on it and it will get better, with no accountability as to what happened to the old money. It hasn't gone to rebuilding Iraq that's for sure. We still don't know what happened to the 8 billion reported over the summer as missing.

Maybe because it's 3:30 in the freakin' morning, but I can't even get my head wrapped around this shit. They're assuming we have no memory at all, aren't they.

[EFerrari]

4. Bingo. Eat your melatonin :)

[orleans]

13. Doublespeak

doublespeak, doublespeak

they are so full of sh*t!

and if we do get hit again, whose fault is it? on whose watch? but nearly half of this country is gonna start saying: "at least he was there to protect us so it wasn't worse!" just like the foolish ones said last time and then voted for him in november.

ugh!

feb. 16 they are telling us: "it may be only a matter of time before chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons are used on u.s. soil"

feb. 17 the idiot nominates john negroponte for director of national intelligence.

we're either suppose to not notice he's putting a killer in control of cia etc. or we're suppose to feel safer.

you decide.

[radfringe]

6. bush*'s numbers are falling

http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm#Bush

[JohnnyRingo]

8. I think you got it....Ashcroft's "Terror traffic light" always followed

...Buxh's poll numbers.

[LittleClarkie]

10. As someone in another thread pointed out

People like Hannity are going to have to stop saying "Since the war in Iraq, we haven't had another attack on American soil."

That was obviously last month's memo. The new memo reads simply, "PANIC!!!!"

[bling bling]

7. How long do we have to put up with this shit?

This fear factoring SHOULD strike Americans as odd, no matter how you look at it:

1) Bloggers begin to unmask the corruptness of the Bush administration. Suddenly (yet predictably): "LOOK!! Over there!! Terrorists. They're going to ATTACK US! Be afraid!"

2) Even if the terrorists really ARE going to attack us, wasn't the fact that Bush was going to keep us safe THE BIGGEST PART OF HIS RE-ELECTION PLATFORM?

This is so beyond ridiculous.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Remember just before the first debate

when suddenly the call went out "Beware the Chechneans!" Whatever happened to those rascally Russian muslims? And the "schools are in danger" report that was a couple years old.

[Al-CIAda]

9. Like the mafia, they want "protection money". -eom

[Q]

12. It's the first beat...

...of the war drums. Syria? Iran?

[radfringe]

14. both at the same time

we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq -- sandwiched between we have Iran and Syria

yesterday it was reported that Iran and Syria are now allies of sorts.

back in January "crashcart" Cheney said {paraphrased} he wouldn't be surprised if Israel attacked Iranian nuke facilities

the way I see it playing out -- Israel attacks an Iranian nuke facility. Now, Iran has to respond or Syria responds on Iran's behalf by attacking Israel in some manner

at this point General "Yee-haww" bush* starts screaming about how we have to defend Israel. So (with or without an internation coalition - which may or may not include Poland) we invade Iran and Syria

defending a friendly nation from attacks is more palatable to the American sensibility as opposed to invading for the purpose of finding mythical weapons of mass destruction

Blaming Syria for the recent assasination in Lebonon is just icing on the cake -- it goes to a "pattern of past behavior"

[VOX]

15. Hey, Cheney said the U.S. would only get hit if Kerry was elected!

So, is BushCo **LYING**? What a surprise!
:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2917-2004Sep7.html
Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky
Democrats Decry Talk as Scare Tactic
By Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A01

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

In Des Moines, Cheney went beyond previous restraints to suggest that the country would be more vulnerable to attack under Kerry. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again," the vice president said, "that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."

<snip>