The Counterterrorism Blog notes that intelligence analysts are seeing a dramatic increase in al-Qaeda “chatter” – a level not seen since before the September 11 attacks. There have been several relatively credible threats of terrorist attacks circulating on various jihadi internet sites in recent weeks which may indicate that preparations are underway for a terrorist attack against the US.
Al-Qaeda doesn’t usually directly announce their intentions, although recent attacks on Europe had been preceded by calls for a “truce” between European nations and al-Qaeda – as recently as January, bin Laden had offered the US a similar deal. Al-Qaeda’s planning is decidedly long-range, and it is quite possible that the chatter may be related to the foiled attempt at a massive Tet Offensive-style attack on Baghdad’s Green Zone. That attack would have had a devastating effect on morale and public opinion about the war, and disrupting it was a major coup for US and Iraqi authorities.
A combination of luck, solid policework, and military offense has prevented al-Qaeda from attacking the US for nearly 5 years now – but there is always a chance that al-Qaeda will get lucky and be able to pull off yet another major attack. As long as that chance exists, our military and law enforcement personnel – as well the public – need to be aware of the threat and willing to take decisive action to prevent it. Terrorism may be an unfortunate reality of our age, but we must never take that threat with a sense of passivity.
And for that the libs are looking to censure or impeach the president.
Ray, you mean the censure of the President that 46% of Americans support and only 44% oppose??? http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Damn, I didn’t realize that “libs” now made up 46% of the American electorate!!!!
Yeah, a poll from an obscure polling group with absolutely no internals – there’s a credible source for you.
According to the uncle of my barber’s brother’s second cousin, people so totally support having George W. Bush publicly de-pantsed in the Rose Garden. Also, sniffing Elmer’s Glue doesn’t work.
“Yeah, a poll from an obscure polling group with absolutely no internals – there’s a credible source for you.”
ARG is obscure? That’s funny. You sure lapped every one of their Presidential election polls 18 months ago like a thirsty St. Bernard.
I mentioned them exactly twice before. Once for a New Hampshire primary poll, and once in passing during the 2004 race.
The first rule of polling is that if a poll doesn’t have internals, it’s worthless. The idea that there’s a massive groundswell for censure is patently ridiculous – and the fact that ARG won’t release detailed internals for this poll suggests that it was another political push poll paid for by a political action group and nothing more.
Of course, the liberal spin machine loves to commission polls and then trumpet the results they’ve had nicely fixed for them – and uncritical partisans like Mark lap that stuff up. For the rest of us, such polls aren’t worth the bit used to transmit them.
While you have a point about internals, are you trying to tell me you wouldn’t foist a favorable poll upon us if one was made available? You’ve made far bigger logical leaps in your blogging history than to (gasp!) cite a poll.
Run Russ Run ! Feingold in ’08 where do I send my check !!!
I tend not to care about polls unless it’s relatively close to an election when people pay attention, or they’re general attitude polls like the Kennedy Center survey. Polls are really quite useless for determining policy, and one of the Clinton Administration’s greatest flaws – a flaw that the Bush Administration often repeats, is an overreliance on polling in shaping policy. People don’t pay attention to political issues until close to election time, and randomly sampling a bunch of people and asking them what they think of an issue is going to produce so much noise for such little signal it’s hardly worth it – and the wording of a question can have massive effects on how people respond.
Yet, at the same time, would 46% of the electorate being in support of the censure be suprising at a time when most mainstream pollsters are puting the president’s approval rating near the 35% mark? I don’t know if it’s as high as 46%, but it wouldn’t shock me if it’s equal to or even slightly higher than Bush’s approval rating.
I don’t think so – there’s an awfully big line between disapproving a President and wanting to censure him – especially over an issue that the majority of the electorate has no problem with, namely the NSA wiretapping issue.
Then again, if the Democrats want to believe that there’s a groundswell of anti-Bush sentiment over the NSA wiretaps, that’s great. It will mean that there’s an even greater chance they’ll lose in 2006…