« word sex | Main | what's pissing you off today? »

the boys who cried terror

the boys who cried terror

It's interesting to note that the current administration is defending themselves for not giving out warnings pre-9/11 when they had them, stating that the warnings they received were vague and unsubstantiated.

And what have they been doing since 9/11? That's right. Giving out vague and unsubstantiated warnings.

At first they were just trying to keep everyone on their toes, making sure your flags were waving and your ire was up. That whole be vigilant thing. Ashcroft or one of the other four horsemen of doom would stand in front of a microphone and tell you that it could be anytime, anywhere, any method. Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe. So ummm...just watch out.

It got to be a little like Santa Claus. Remember when you were a kid, always wondering if the big fat guy was spying on you? Or god. I always thought god was watching me, too. So at any moment, lightning would rain down from the sky and coal would appear in my Christmas stockings. The life of a paranoid child.

So now the life of a paranoid adult isn't much different. Because your all-powerful, all-knowing leaders have conjured up all kinds of mythical figures and scary monsters to make you look over your shoulder at every turn.

And it's great that it's so vague. Because that means he could be talking to you. Or you. Or you. It means it could be your city. Or your town. Or your apartment building.

At least they are getting a bit more specific. They have probably scared off a million would-be tourists from New York City on Memorial Day weekend with their latest announcment. First of all, who didn't already figure out that major landmarks would be targets? Secondly, what the hell is the point in announcing this? Do they think people are going to flee New York like some sci-fi movie where everyone is crowding the bridges and tunnels, leaning on their horns and waiting for Wil Smith to save them? I mean, if you can't say Evacuate now! The Brooklyn Bridge will blow up on Saturday morning! then there's really no point in terrorizing your citizens.

Oh. I get it. They want to cover their asses. This way, when something finally does happen - say a small explosion in some Iowa farmland or a major landmark going down - they can say they told you so. They warned you.

"Anytime. Anywhere. We don't know who. We don't know when. We don't know how. But they will come. "

See, that covers all the bases. So when Cheney is snug in his underground bunker and Ashcroft is high above the carnage in Air Force One and Bush is left standing on the White House lawn screaming "what about meeeeee??" then they can go on FoxNews the next day and say Don't look at us. We warned you as best we could.

So just to prove that I have tuned out the warnings (what color stage are we in now? fuschia?) of the boys who cried terror, I'm going to the city this weekend. I'll climb the Statue of Liberty and give Osama the finger while I'm up there, just to bait him, and then I will run naked across the Brooklyn Bridge shouting "Come get me, you rotten terrorists!"

Ok, maybe not. But you get my point, don't you? Point being, I wish they would just shut up. We know their damn words. We realize that there are more terrorists out there. Putting out vague, unsubstantiated warnings is not going to do anything but drive up the prescription rate of anti-anxiety drugs.

Unless....does anyone know if Ashcroft has stock in.....



FYI... it was the NYPD who released yesterdays warning, not the fed gov.
Condeming those in a lose-lose situation takes guts. If they warn people bitch, if they dont people bitch. Maybe its the people who bitch who are the ultimate problem eh?

The original warning came from the FBI. I quote "The FBI, citing an "abundance of caution," warned authorities to be ready for possible terrorist attacks against city landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge....": CNN

"The information about those targets came via the FBI in Washington..": Newsday

In what way does people bitching make them the ultimate problem? I thought the ultimate problem here was we are not winning the "war on terrorism."

I wanna see a blogging titathon - bloggers of NYC, show no fear, just show your boobs! We're on a ratings winner. Bugger the scare tatics.

I'm not adverse to showing my boobs if it will get Ashcroft to shut the hell up.

If it hadn't been for the political wrangling ("why didn't you tell us"), they wouldn't be talking. So, blame it on the non-intelligence (that's intelligence, not intelligent) community.

Ordinary people are not equipped to deal with all the facts. If the makers of radios and televisions didn't include circuitry to "filter out the noise", no-one would enjoy these forms of entertainment. Ordinary people should understand that it is for their own good that they are not told everything.

That doesn't mean there should be no communication. Inter-departmental communication within the intelligence community should be improved, so that things don't slip through the cracks. But public warnings not only scare civilians, it also alerts terrorists that their plans may have been compromised, and allows them to change to "plan B" undetected.

good. good. excellent comment. we know that they do not know. Maybe the Carlyle Group has picked up options on anxiety drugs? they are not covering their puny asses very well.

It has been my opinion since 9/11 that the reason for warning after warning was that they had always had the same type warnings but ignored them and nyc paid the price. What I don't get is how a specific warning about Moussai (sp) didn't make it to the top of the totem pole until post attack.

Michele, evidently you are the problem for bitching about the administration, which we all know is providing aid to the terrorists. Keep up the good work.

And your boobs (all boobs, even those made of stone) are a dangerous weapon. Ashcroft is afraid of them almost as much as calico cats. Please handle them responsibly.

Like they say, if you can't be part of the solution, be part of the problem.

That is what they say, isn't it?

My partner and I were discussing this very thing the other night. It seems like once the flag-waving and general hysteria start to die down and people begin to get back to the business of everyday life..here comes Ashcroft or some similar harbinger of gloom and doom and gives a totally vauge warning of impending terror out there somewhere..we don't KNOW where..but it's gonna happen. So what exactly do we DO with these warnings? Do we just decide to stick our heads between our legs and give our asses the long kiss goodbye until whenever the "Big one" hits? Do we go out and get precriptions for Xanax just to be able to get through the day and sleep at night in anticipation of another terrorist attack out there somewhere? What is the POINT in all of this? Just what can we do, as citizens? Wear flack jackets and helmets? Report anyone who speaks ill of Bush and his regime? Buy more American flags and place them all around like totems to keep away the evil terrorists? Are these guys putting out a blanket statement to cover their pasty, white asses when something DOES happen OR or they just not happy unless the country stays in a semi-furor of pro-government patriotism overlooking every other shitty thing that happens to be going on? If the fires die down people may start looking at Bush and the status quo in a less than perfect "Hero" light. Remember all the anthrax scares? Funny how they never were able to track that person down...not able to track Bin Laden down..not able to do anything but hassle the innocent people. I don't know...but I do know it pisses me off to keep hearing all these warnings..we KNOW the threat is out there..I say either PROTECT our ASSES or shut the hell up! Life goes on.

Excellent post, Michele! Thoughts I absolutely agree with but would never be able to write down in words this way. Very well said.

Very well said! I enjoy reading all of your posts, but this one was especially well written and pertinent to yesterday's FBI warning (again).

And I quote the NYTimes... "The FBI warned city officials on Tuesday about uncorroborated information that landmarks, such as the Statue of Liberty, might be targeted by terrorists.."
As I stated earlier, city officials released the warning to the public, not the Feds.
Its the very people such as yourself who complain about the current vague warnings that are now attacking the president for not making a vague warning prior to 9-11.
yawn ignorance bores me.

Kara must bore herself a lot.

Michele, did you really run naked across the Brooklyn Bridge this morning?

Good one, wKen!

I'm looking forward to the day that I can sing along with The Hives to Bush's lemmings, "Hate to say I told you sooo!"

That is of course if by that time I haven't been wiped out like the people who didn't follow Adolf.

I never attacked the president for not making a vague warning before 9/11. In an unusual stance, I fully support Bush's decision NOT to make announcements like that.

However, I'm attacking him, the FBI and the rest of the D.C. crowd for making these ridiculous announcements now.

And, Dick Cheney was on Fox News this week giving his "anytime, anywhere, but it is with certainty" speech.

I have a hard time arguing with people who won't even leave an email address.

Go yawn somewhere else.

And note that my support for Bush is only his hesitation to make vague, unsubstantiated warning to the public.

Not giving a heads up to airlines, etc. is another matter for which he should be unforgivingly sporked. And I am totally aware that some of these warnings came while Clinton was in office. He gets the spork 'o death also.

I see your side of it, but I also see why they need to cover their asses.

Because they're all wrinkley and old and political.

Jen, thank you. Reading that was the best part of my day.

Its not scaring us away. I'll see you on the bridge, Saturday morning, Michelle!