The Underscore Archives

> If they don't tell you they've foiled attacks we wonder what 
> the point of spending lots on defence and intelligence is; if 
> they do tell you it's scaremongering. The best way to 
> guarantee a budget / continuing public support would be to 
> let a few things get blown up.

But then people'd be calling for their heads.

Regardless, the issue isn't the anouncements. The issue is suspcicious
timing: throughout the runup to the Nov04 U.S. presidential election, the
terror alert status was consistently higher -- and announcements of
intelligence regarding foiled/impending attacks consistently coincided --
with negative publicity for the preznit and/or his administration.

I don't recall the site that had the diagram/chart -- I believe I got to it
from a link on washingtonmonthly.com -- but it really was striking.
Particularly in the context of coninuing hints, innuendo and occasionally
outright declarations that OBL, AQ et al 'wanted' Kerry to win.

	"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
	 populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
	 safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
	 hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

	 -- H. L. Mencken


ck