So back to my original comments- why has NY gone back to the way it was before the warnings? Was there a need for a week of crazy security and scaring the citizens for nothing?
That's top secret, and if I told you, I'd have to kill you.
But seriously, all of a sudden there are great deals to St. Thomas, available through Monday (I got mine on USAir, connecting through Philly, for about $400). Thought I'd share...
Just so you know I wasn't being flip in changing the subject (well, ok, I was), I came across (what I think is) a decent explanation of a plausible scenario over on Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2105141/).
Oh yuck. I didn't know the way I did that would obliviate the quote I posted...
[quote]"There was a decision in the U.S. intelligence community to roll up the al-Qaida networks we know about now and push them out of a pre-election attack," he told me.
That is to say, the most important information that came from Khan was not about the five potential financial-sector targets in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., that al-Qaida had chosen as far back as four years ago to attack. What U.S. intelligence learned is that there was an extremely serious, imminent operation in the advanced-planning stages. The information placed in the Times, Friedman explains, "was part of a systematic series of leaks, designed to confuse al-Qaida. They don't know what we know and what we don't know. Since their operational principle is never attack into a highly secure environment, the assumption is that they'd abort this operation."
I asked Friedman, author of the forthcoming book America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies, why other intelligence professionals were skeptical of the government's actions. For instance, CIA officer Robert Baer argued, "You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this."
Friedman explains that there are two sides to any debate in the intelligence community: intelligence and security. "The gut of an intel guy like Baer is that you never shut down an operation by going public," says Friedman. "The security people have a narrower point of view: The best way to make al-Qaida go on tilt is to reveal that they have been penetrated. In this particular case, I see the need to let al-Qaida know that we know something. Otherwise, they will continue their operation, thinking they are secure. Maybe we sweep the board before the operation is executed, and maybe we get hit hard. Better to force them to abort their operation even if we lose intelligence opportunities. I see Baer's point of view, but in this case, I'm with the security guys."[/quote]
As you discredit most of the sources i quote, I hardly think a "Slate opinion" article has insight into the events. There's little fact there (other then the oops of leaking Kahns name)-- it's all assumptions of a "master plan to flush out the enemy". I don't buy it. Posted last Friday... no one on the web links to that article or gives it any street cred.
And yes the media is on cruise control... there's a lot of crap this administration is doing that should be investigated. Things are a lot sketchier today than "travel-gate" ever was.
For the record- anyone reading these exchanges, that doesn't know me-
I have the greatest respect for Spider. He's a old friend, fraternity brother and he's coming to the Caribbean to party for a week and attend my wedding. He's always favorite to enjoy a beer with, engage in an intelligent debate, and provide some kicking tunes.
That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled blog post. Keep it moving, there's nothing to see here...
I'll bite.
Warnings are not warrented for an imminent attack -- evacuations are.
Nice try.
:p
So back to my original comments- why has NY gone back to the way it was before the warnings? Was there a need for a week of crazy security and scaring the citizens for nothing?
That's top secret, and if I told you, I'd have to kill you.
But seriously, all of a sudden there are great deals to St. Thomas, available through Monday (I got mine on USAir, connecting through Philly, for about $400). Thought I'd share...
Just so you know I wasn't being flip in changing the subject (well, ok, I was), I came across (what I think is) a decent explanation of a plausible scenario over on Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2105141/).
-snip->-snip-
Make of it what you will.
-Spider
Oh yuck. I didn't know the way I did that would obliviate the quote I posted...
[quote]"There was a decision in the U.S. intelligence community to roll up the al-Qaida networks we know about now and push them out of a pre-election attack," he told me.
That is to say, the most important information that came from Khan was not about the five potential financial-sector targets in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., that al-Qaida had chosen as far back as four years ago to attack. What U.S. intelligence learned is that there was an extremely serious, imminent operation in the advanced-planning stages. The information placed in the Times, Friedman explains, "was part of a systematic series of leaks, designed to confuse al-Qaida. They don't know what we know and what we don't know. Since their operational principle is never attack into a highly secure environment, the assumption is that they'd abort this operation."
I asked Friedman, author of the forthcoming book America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies, why other intelligence professionals were skeptical of the government's actions. For instance, CIA officer Robert Baer argued, "You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this."
Friedman explains that there are two sides to any debate in the intelligence community: intelligence and security. "The gut of an intel guy like Baer is that you never shut down an operation by going public," says Friedman. "The security people have a narrower point of view: The best way to make al-Qaida go on tilt is to reveal that they have been penetrated. In this particular case, I see the need to let al-Qaida know that we know something. Otherwise, they will continue their operation, thinking they are secure. Maybe we sweep the board before the operation is executed, and maybe we get hit hard. Better to force them to abort their operation even if we lose intelligence opportunities. I see Baer's point of view, but in this case, I'm with the security guys."[/quote]
As you discredit most of the sources i quote, I hardly think a "Slate opinion" article has insight into the events. There's little fact there (other then the oops of leaking Kahns name)-- it's all assumptions of a "master plan to flush out the enemy". I don't buy it. Posted last Friday... no one on the web links to that article or gives it any street cred.
And yes the media is on cruise control... there's a lot of crap this administration is doing that should be investigated. Things are a lot sketchier today than "travel-gate" ever was.
For the record- anyone reading these exchanges, that doesn't know me-
I have the greatest respect for Spider. He's a old friend, fraternity brother and he's coming to the Caribbean to party for a week and attend my wedding. He's always favorite to enjoy a beer with, engage in an intelligent debate, and provide some kicking tunes.
That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled blog post. Keep it moving, there's nothing to see here...
Fair enough -- I was just putting it forth as one possible explanation.
Thanks for the props, brother.
-Spizizzile