|
|
Obama Admin predicts small scale terror... in time for elections, again? Aaron Dykes
Al-Qaeda and its allies are likely to attempt small-scale, less sophisticated terrorist attacks in the United States, senior Obama administration officials said Wednesday, noting that it's extremely difficult to detect such threats in advance.
The main thrust of these timely "warnings" is to scare the public, not to share intelligence analysis. It is clear from the context that there is no basis for expecting an attack-- the 'evidence' cited by Napolitano & co. includes reference to the attempted "underwear bombing" on a flight to Detroit-- proven to be a falsehood, as eyewitnesses on the plane contradict the official account. Homeland Security also cites the 'failed' Times Square car bombing-- an incident that didn't include any real explosives or any connection to terrorism or al Qaeda at all. Napolitano further links this terror threat with the alleged "rise" of domestic extremism, which has never been qualified or demonstrated, but only hyped via the MIAC and Homeland Security reports issued by DHS earlier in the Obama Administration. Those reports merely speculate that incidents will likely occur based on blanket-mass profiling-- a mirror of the Administration's current attempt to spark worry and fear.
It is the same move the Bush Administration admittedly used for political expediency post-9/11. Recall that so-called Bin Laden tapes would consistently emerge just prior to key elections or that the terror alert levels would be elevated to re-enforce the fear in the populace for purely political purposes. CIA officials have now admitted to faking Bin Laden videos. Is it any wonder Obama would now discuss absorbing a terror attack in the U.S. or that Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano would revive the script of homeland terror threats and the pre-programmed idea of small-scale al Qaeda attacks? Is it a coincidence that Obama advisor Robert Shapiro suggested this summer that only a large-scale terror attack could counter President Obama's "credibility crisis": "He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can't think of how he could do that." 9/11 was obviously a ace-card in the Bush Administration's public relations deck; the Oklahoma City Bombing bolstered Bill Clinton's image for a second term. Would the Obama Administration use an attack any differently? Who orchestrates these talking points and baseless forecasts of terror? Why is Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham simultaneously also cynically stating that another terror attack is imminent? Political expediency, not the omnipresence of al Qaeda, is the only logical answer. If the administration has verifiable intel, it should prevent the attacks, not try to score political points.
|
|
||||||||
"Terrorism" concerns necessarily hinge on fear, and it is now completely predictable that an otherwise unpopular Obama Administration would roll out the threat of terror to bolster support for the 2010 elections. The Washington Post reports that the "
