First of all, this makes me wonder who approves the book. I mean, if the White House didn't want it published, it makes me wonder if they don't have to get permission. It also makes me wonder how long it will be before there is a law passed to safeguard against this kind of thing in the future. It also makes me wonder how long it will be before this CIA agent's name is leaked.
quote: According to the Guardian, Anonymous thinks it possible that another devastating strike against the US could be staged during the election campaign. But, unlike with the Madrid train bombings, the aim would be to retain the administration rather than change it.
The paper says Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now", Anonymous is quoted as saying.
"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
I actually agree with that. And it scares the hell out of me. And I'm not talking about the attack, though that is unnerving, too.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.
I just heard about this book a few minutes ago, then remembered seeing the thread (which, until now, sounded really boring ). Judging by the lack of responses, Kayla, you weren't the last to know.
Anyway, it seems like Anonymous has a leg to stand on, and should probably be taken seriously.
I do believe that the Bush administration is the one that terrorists would rather see in control for the next four years.
I think that right now, Bush's actions are pretty much speaking for themselves.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
This book (from the write up) says nothing new. In fact, the Homeland Defense folks have been crowing about new Al-Queda attacks for more than a year.
Hello? Code Orange, anyone? Heightened terror alert?
Of course, when they say it, it's the administration fear-mongering. When some schmoe who won't divulge his name says it, it's "TRUTH."
And ANYONE with half a brain could knows that the terrorists want Bush in rather than Kerry, and that if there is another terrorist attack, Bush will win in 2004. This is fairly common knowledge, because everyone knows that Bush will continue the conflict. And that is what the terrorists want-- a contest of power.
posted
Well, if you ask anyone in the Bush administration they will tell you that Bin Laden wouldn't want Bush to win because he has done such a great job hunting them down...
I know! Bin Laden is hiding in the ethics office in the White House. The reason Bush can't find him is he doesn't know where that office is, or what it does....
posted
It seems to me that the scariest part of the message of Anonymous is that an attack could be mounted for the sole purpose of keeping Bush in power. In Spain, the governments attempt to atribute the blame to ETA seriously backfired, and I wondered how calculated that was on part of the terrorists. I believe the outcome of the elections might have been different without the attempt to manipulate the people.
Now to the really scary thought: If there is any truth to this assessment of the political situation in USA (as reportedly described in the book), what are the chances that this possibility has been observed by others, someone with close links to the current government? And how far would a president (any president) be willing to go to stay in power? It's an ugly thought, but it was my immediate reaction upon reading about this book. Is this something too far out to even be considered?
Posts: 99 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by "too far out" you mean "someone wrote a book just like this, but we 'never thought of an airplane being used as a missile,'" then yes. It's too far out.
Of course, a President being in cahoots with an oil cartel to manipulate the price of gasoline right before the election also seems "out there." But that's just me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we want to get paranoid, let's really get paranoid.
Someone writes a book claiming the terrorists no an attack will help Bush.
Then there's an attack. Thanks to the book, there's a backlash against Bush blaming him for the attack.
The author of the book is a CIA worker with knowledge of the M.O. of terrorists, enough to make an attack look like al-Queda.
Hmmmm....
Dagonee *I don't buy my story any more than I buy the opposite one, but it's real easy to make this stuff up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is all just guesswork...besides who is to say who this "anonymous official" as far as we know he is a janitor claiming to be someone important.
As for an attack, it would be foolish to use an attack in an attempt to keep Bush in office (even if that really was what bin laden would want...something I am on convinced of). It is impossible to tell which way public opinion would go...and judging by the mood of the media it would likely go in the opposite direction. Particularly since people have been upset with how things have gone in Iraq.
People have been saying for months that there may be an attack to prevent bush from being elected. What could this anonymous guy add? Nothing. All he does is look at what we have been hearing and say "no, I think public opinion will go the other way." Even if he claims to have seen documents that suggest Bin Laden is leaning in one direction or the other…that does not change the fact that public opinion would have to change. A guy in the CIA is no more qualified to judge which way public opinion will go than any other person. They are even less qualified than a reporter as reporters have a large impact on which way public opinion will run.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, maybe you missed it, but this guy works for the CIA. His job, it seems, was to figure out what bin Laden is thinking. He isn't saying what the American people will think or how they react. He is saying what bin Laden thinks will happen. Do you seriously think the publisher doens't know who this guy is?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, of course it’s guesswork. I believe that working successfully in and with intelligence is being good at guesswork.. And much of what has happened concerning terrorism since 9/11 seems based on guesswork.
I was just saying “What if?”. Not being an American, it’s hard for me to say how such a scenario would work out. Do you think there would be a rallying around the president? Or would people say: “Look what he’s brought us into”?
Posts: 99 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I am to cynical to trust the publisher. Particularly one I had not heard of. Just as I have a hard time believing reporters who rely to much on anonymous sources. That is the fun of being an anonymous source, you can say whatever the hell you want and get away with it. Anonymous sources can be VERY important in starting an investigation. They can help you get a foot in the door on things that would normally go uncovered. However, I don't think books or reports should be based solely on an anonymous source.
Perhaps he is in a little better position to say what bin laden might think (though the CIA is not great at that...seeing as the guy is still running around causing trouble) but it is not really relevant on the grand scheme of things. It is third hand guess work...This anonymous guy is guessing about what bin laden is guessing the reaction of the American public will be
At least when Coulter and Moore make their right and left (respectively) wing rants they are willing to attach their name to their opinions.
quote: I was just saying “What if?”. Not being an American, it’s hard for me to say how such a scenario would work out. Do you think there would be a rallying around the president? Or would people say: “Look what he’s brought us into”?
My guess is that people would say "look what he brought us into" That is just judging by the mood of the public and media at present.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). Judging by the lack of responses, Kayla, you weren't the last to know. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
