If the new CIA guy is right, then Americans deserved pre-9/11 warning

[Miss Authoritiva]

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has said that "the terrorist threat against the United States in the run-up to the November election is as serious as at any time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

McLaughlin stated: "The quality of the information we have now is such that we have high confidence that the nation needs to be on guard."

Am I misreading this? (1)The terrorist threat now is equivalent to the terrorist threat that resulted in the 9/11 attacks; therefore, (2) the United States needs to be on guard.

If so, why was no such warning statement issued to the American people before the 9/11 attacks?

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5661504

[DeepModem Mom]

1. Good point! n/t

[ewagner]

2. Oh, come now...

Didn't Condi say that all that pre-9/11 stuff was just "historical"....<sarcasm off>

[swag]

3. Of course it's "just historical" to say such a thing as

"Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US."

[Rose Siding]

4. That's a pretty good question!

Can't fault the logic

[sangh0]

5. Yes, you are misreading it

It wasn't "The terrorist threat now is equivalent to the terrorist threat that resulted in the 9/11 attacks"

It was "the terrorist threat against the United States in the run-up to the November election is as serious as at any time *SINCE* the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." (emphasis mine)

He is referring to the threats we have perceived since AFTER 9/11, not before.

[porphyrian]

7. ...which means there really isn't one. - n/t

[Miss Authoritiva]

9. Strict constructionism versus less strict constructionism.

I get the point about "since." So, interpreting McLaughlin's statement in the strictest sense possible, it would mean "since 11:59 pm on September 11, 2001."

But there is also the less strict interpretation, that is, the more colloquial use of "since 9/11" as a historical marker encompassing the events more or less surrounding the attacks.

Just a thought.

[jean]

6. look at the quote again

he said, "as serious as at any time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

So he's talking post-9/11.

[jedicord]

8. Bartcop had a link to his page on 9/11/01...

He was reporting the day as it occurred, pretty interesting. I'd give the link, but I'm not sure about copyright, etc. I'm sure someone knows.

Anyhoo, that day Saudi said that Bin Laden had warned of the attacks 3 weeks before. That struck me. Where was Bush? Can you say Crawford? And that falls around the time of the Presidential Briefing titled something like "Al Queda to Attack US".

They were warned, and as you say, we weren't.

SOBs.

[NuttyFluffers]

10. then they better raise the warning level to red.

fine, put themselves in a Catch 22. either they raise the warning level (and bankrupt the states) or sit down and shut up. i'm tired of their nonsense.

if they scream about it, scream back to raise the level to red. if they won't then they can kiss my @$$.

[the Kelly Gang]

11. but Bush has made it safe now..hasn't he ????