The Terror Alert page of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says the following:
“Raising the threat condition has economic, physical and psychological effects on the nation.”
In a similar vein, writer Kurt Nimmo of Las Cruces, New Mexico linked higher threat levels to anxiety and paranoia in the general American population, as published in CounterPunch.
Also, Brigitte L. Nacos, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, published a study showing that higher threat levels resulted in increases in President Bush’s popularity. It could also be said that the same goes for the Republican Party which has been described as being perceived by the electorate as the strongest party in terms of national security.
So, with all this awareness of the effectiveness of these alerts, the question is this - have they been used as a political weapon in attempts to influence voters?
First of all, it should be understood that, while there are five threat levels, the bottom two have never been used during this war on terror, so we are essentially only dealing with the upper three. For the record, here are the five threat levels:
SEVERE………...Red Alert
HIGH…………....Orange Alert
ELEVATED…….Yellow Alert
GUARDED………Blue Alert
LOW……………..Green Alert
The quickest way to see if there is a possible connection between these alerts and our political campaigns is simply to look at the dates that they were announced in relation to the elections themselves.
So, beginning with the first election after the start of our war on terror, which was the midterm election of November, 2002, we find that the terror alert was, in fact raised to HIGH for two weeks ending September 24th, less than two months before the election.
As for the presidential election of November 2, 2004, it was preceded by a HIGH alert that extended from 12/21/03 to 1/9/04, just before the primary season, and another HIGH alert that ran from 8/1/04 to the week after the election.
In addition, official terror warnings that didn’t involve elevated alert levels were issued on May 28, 2004, about six months before the election, and on July 8, 2004, four months before the election.
With respect to the midterm election of 11/7/06, which was known to be going badly for the Republican Party, a SEVERE alert was issued from August 10, 2006 to August 14, 2006, concentrating on flights from the UK, less than three months before the election.
Since August 10, 2006, we have also been on HIGH alert with respect to international flights.
Other than these alerts, which clearly occurred during active campaign cycles, there were only two other episodes. One episode involved three quick HIGH alerts that took place at the time of our invasion of Iraq in the February to May period of 2003.
The other was a HIGH alert issued in July, 2005 at the time of the London bombing, and was restricted to mass transit only.
Of those alerts that occurred during election cycles, most were based on intelligence from foreign sources, with two exceptions. The alert in ‘02 was simply because it was the first anniversary of 9/11, and the alert in ‘06 was because of the uncovering of a terror plot in England.
Some critics have speculated that President Bush has employed the alert system more for political reasons than for national security. This was particularly true with respect to the alert in 2004 which covered a three month period ending the week after the election and which could have been a factor in Bush’s close victory. The “foreign intelligence” behind that one, as with all, was not divulged.
The critics voicing their concern included Al Kamen on 10/13/04 in “Will Terror Alert Level Show Its True Colors?,” The Washington Post on 5/16/06 in an article entitled “Dems Question Timing of Terror Alert,” and FOX News on 8/4/04.
These are the facts. What’s your opinion?
Dave McGill, News Correspondent……………….
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week………….
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development…………….
You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 88
I would tend to think that if the electorate sees the Republican party as being the toughest on security, than so would the terrorists.
And, if that is the situation, than a case could be made that terrorists would be less likely to commit terrorist acts during election cycles, so as to avoid helping the party that might be tougher on them...
The hypothetical premise of your article is what is often called; "circumstantial".
But your comment is more to my liking; "razor logic".
A long time ago my grand mother made a statement I really did not understand until recently...she was an immigrant, only went to school to 5th grade and then cleaned houses to help support the family....but during the depression she was widowed and she started baking cookies that she sold to local stores - called Deans Home baked cookies...she and her sister-in-law would get up at 5am start the wood stove bake the cookies and then go deliver them...with in a year she had several salesmen on a payroll...they worked very hard...sadly, on the day of the crash, she was going to the bank with a $3000 Deposit to cover payroll and expenses and the bank door was locked...she pounded on the glass door and the banker opened the door to tell her they were closed...she was adamant by telling them she had to write checks for her help and she needed to make that deposit...Guess what...he so oh well - then you can come in....took the money and gave her a receipt and the next day she found out she no longer had anything in the bank...
My point is...you have corporate blue blood Americans and then you have the worker that makes the corporation what it is...and gives them their success....I am not saying this is wrong...I am simply explaining why I think the way I do...when it comes to protection, survival and safety...which is all about terrorist...its not the conservative republican they need to be afraid of....
Very good question! I tend to think that such things as terror alerts can be from actual information leading to greater risk or political expediency! Frankly, I'm not satisfied that the Department of Homeland Security is actually working to improve the safety of our nation. The agencies that have collected this kind of data have been in place in this country for a long time and simply needed to talk to one another. The creation of the department was very much political, an effort to "do something!"
Fear is a well worn and successful tool in the manipulation of public opinion so I don't think there is a snowball's chance in the eternal den of atonement that the administration has not used the alerts as a means of manipulating voters. This would be true regardless of party in charge.
I think we are a little full of ourselves when we think that the terrorists are that attuned to the impulses of our people or that they even give a hoot about real life in America.
Hat's off to you. That comment positively sizzles with wisdom.
Chaos is one of the forces of creativity because it forces you to think in new ways. Because the human mind wants to find patterns in objects or happenings, it will take disparate items and find a pattern in them. By introducing random elements into a situation, new patterns, new ways of looking at a problem emerge.
You see, the human mind is conditioned to find patterns where none actually exist. It is particularly the "nuts and bolts" kind of thinking, men are most adept at using.
While you may see a "pattern" in the things you observe, doesn't necessarily mean a pattern exists.
Try again sprout, you've got nuttin' here.
How very consistent of you. Without any regard to the fact that virtually every person here, including the author, express reservations about the hypothetical premise, you jJump right in with the same old song and dance about how robotic those at odds with your views are. And anxious to find fault with their nemesis.
You protest way to much, me thinks.
Are we now to simply cease all questioning of any sort, which does not serve your masters?
Your knee jerk response to EVERY post of mine you happen to see, is as amusing as it is predictable.
I'm not a mathematician but I have the opportunity to speak to some pretty good ones from time to time, and this business of finding "patterns" has always kept my curiousity through the years.
It really is amazing, how little control we have over our bodies, based on physical limitations. We are simply coded to do what we do. For the vast majority of human beings, it is nearly impossible to see just about anything, without striving to find a pattern to define what the eye/mind is actually seeing.
There is no blame in this-- no shame for being human. We seek patterns.
It soothes the psyche when attempting to find a pattern, it brings definition to a chaotic world. It offers a cacoon of safe haven born on the compliace to your DNA.
Human beings are always trying to apply labels, to things they cannot explain or understand.
Had that been your first comment, I might very well have praised it.
Just one more reason I'll vote for the one candidate that I know will direct us back to a Constitutional Republic as we should be. That candidate of course is Ron Paul
Found a pattern did we?
This has nothing to do with fear and only to do with reality. Therefore, whenever anything pops up that even comes close to looking like a threat up goes the warnings.
All is only based upon the reality of the situations that occur from day to day
I featured a link in my Gather yard Sale edition.
"President Bush has a great fear that the US will be attacked again by al Qaeda during his watch"
One is baffled as to how one surmises this? Ain't he the fellow that dragged his feet so long on stuff like port an border security, and pursuing a certain notorious member of that gang, and antagonizes the hell out of everything Islam? Just what is it that makes you think he is mortified of Al Qaeda attacking again? The Alert Level tweaking?
Of course I have no idea if the is a correlation between the two but I do feel that every terrorist act, everywhere, is a contrived method to control people by fear. It wouldn't be a great leap for me to believe that the posting of warnings is designed to bring the same effect.
To me, the whole color concept is ridiculous, it is like notifying the enemy when we are just a little relaxed, not so relaxed, etc. We had the Horror of Pear Harbor, now we have had 911, let's not give any enemy " A partial rainbow signal", of just what we are doing on a particular day. Sorry, with so many lives lost, and the proof of potential, the horror of 911 on our fellow Americans, the National Security "Sector" of this country should BE always on a HIGH ALERT> We deserve it. And we are all so busy, "living our lives like it never happened, at the President's request," we just cannot be thinking about potential, nor are we, after all this time, trained to look for what must be a very updated possibility, that "could" happen "God Forbid", at any time, The best way to make the Nation feel secure, and comfort our young, who are growing up in our America, that WAS so horribly violated, for the entire world to see, is to at least let these that would do us harm know, we are on STEADY-HIGH ALERT all over this country, every day. We should be the priority, not their threat level. I know someone is gonna talk about the money. Maybe we should spend it on ourselves. Ellen B
Actually the dates and correlations that you post, could as easily be shown to follow a totally random pattern. Also, I remember that in the last election, Kerry was ahead in the polls, and then Bin Laden released a threatening tape the weekend before the vote, helping to throw the election to Bush. Why do you think he did that?
Perhaps he wanted Mr. Bush to win?
As long as we elect people to power who are more interested in preserving their interests than ours (and that's a bipartisan problem), we will continue to see people manipulate things to show themselves in the best possible light. Now, one could say that upping the terrorist alert hardly makes those in power, those who pride themselves on looking out for our security, look good, but many people who respond to these things with fear will act accordingly.
Manipulation is an age-old ploy, not just in this country, I might add. I wonder if we'll ever be lucky enough to have people in power who are above such things.
"Gut feelings" and vague details are meaningless and intended to up the hysteria level of sheep.
I especially appreciate the fact that you have drawn correlations between facts and made suggestions as to the significance of these correlations without actually stating a conspiracy-theory type assumption. You ask questions rather than drawing conclusions. I think jJack must have missed that.
I believe that there are many factors, of which the voting public is minimally aware, that are designed to affect how we vote. I believe all campaigns use "stealth tactics" to subconsciously sway voter thinking - whether to the candidate's benefit or to the detriment of the opponent. It simply easier for the candidate in power to manipulate these factors (fear, economy, patriotism, etc.) because, well, they're in power.
It's refreshing to see fairly civilized discourse on this thread. Too many political articles on Gather turn instantly into schoolyard matches of name-calling and mud-throwing.
I particularly like Judi's hometown football analogy. How frighteningly accurate.
I also think that our country changed on 9/11 and we don't know how any other president - Republican or Democrat - is going to react to possible terrorist activity. It makes perfect sense to me that persons who want to do us harm would attack during elections or on or near 9/11.
If you're Bush, you're damned if you do and don't. If he had not raised the alert level and something happened? I would much rather have unnecessary alerts raised than have something happen that could have been foreseen.
When you live in hurricane country, you prepare and prepare and prepare, and the storms just pass you by. The one time that people decide not to flood the stores getting all the batteries and such, the one time they decide to stick it out at home, is the time that the storm actually hits.
That same thing already happened to us once on 9/11.
Think about it. Who now, after six years, actually wakes up in the morning and checks out the color code on the "terror alert level"?
Answer: Terrorists.
Surely the people at the DHS aren't bumbling idiots. There is a design and purpose to the terror alert levels; just not the one they would have us beleieve.
Aspiring tyrannies throughout human history have always used some sort of ever-present, pervasive, and deadly evil "enemy" to threaten and scare their subjects into obedient submission.
"...Talk about the Somalia, the Phillipines... Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists." -- Donald Rumsfeld, in a memo to his staff, telling them how to address the press and the public in order to scare up support for the Iraq occupation.
The republicrooks didn't raise it in 2006 because they were sure their pals with the voting machines had the election wrapped up .
Be aware they won't make that mistake again .
*ROFL* is this another 9/11 truth squad goon ??? *ROFL*
cecile
19 believing that alerts have been used as a political weapon, with several saying the Dems would not be above the same tactic...
9 believing otherwise...
and 7 not having an opinion...
I want to say that I followed the commentary closely and many were very impressive...
Thanks for including this in your yard sale, Peter...
And thanks for all your comments...I know that the above numbers don't necessarily reflect the opinions of the overall electorate.....But they are very interesting....
I thank you!
Good article. 10
Oh, looky. Guess what's come right along with the "surge" in fear: historic rises in oil prices and *oil industry profits*, coupled with increased inflation pressures at the expense of the people. I'm flabbergasted! Aren't you?
Instead of oil prices taking their seasonal turn lower, we have record prices for what reason? Because, we are told on all regular media outlets on all sides of the spectrum, of "rising concerns about terrorism." Go figure! How does it work that you and I are paying out all of our apertures for gas, because somebody somewhere is a bit perturbed about the headlines? BUNK, I say!
I've got it all wrong, you say? You mean I really can trust Bush/Cheney/Rove to have my best interests at heart? You mean the whole Iraq thing wasn't a massive, blatant grab for power and money? You mean nobody played our post-9/11 fear for the gain of their own corporations and friends? Gee whiz, that's great!
Pardon my cynicism and pass the tax breaks. I'm applying for a job at Blackwater, so I can get away with murder too.
That's right. I say the Iraq war was a public rape and murder of a country for the profit of the rich. I await proof to the contrary.
To be clear, I would like to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales as well as Scalia and O'Connor impeached or indicted and punished.
But the only thing that pushes me to support them is their firm confrontation of Islamic Totalitarianism, and the fact that the Democrats have not done virtually anything including offering any alternative except quitting, and either have they attacked on the domestic policy either just bugs the hell out of me. If the people are expect to fight a war to defend our society, it ought to be defending the people as well in terms of health care, education, economic democracy, etc.
One other thing correlation does not mean cause, but spending lots of time and energy and thought in irrelvent BS does mean that no one is getting any wiser and none of the real problems are getting talked about or solved.
There is not enough data available for me to decide whether the timing of the terror alerts is deliberate. My money's on "it's intentional", given Bushco's past record of lies and obfuscation.
Having said that, we lived with IRA bomb attacks in Britain all through my childhood. The concept of a whole country on alert because there are still terrorists around (as there will always be) is a bit alien to us.
That Bush might use his bizarre alert system for political gain is like predicting that if you put a chunk of zebra meat in a cage with a lion he'll eat it.
Whether you were Democrat or Republican - I would bet both parties would use the alerts in the same manner. Yeah, even Ron Paul. Do you ever consider we are so bombarded with War information from the media that a lot of the public become anesthetized to whats happening?
Did you find the missing 18 minutes of tape from the Nixon regime too?
Fear is the little death that will eat you whole, and before you learn to live on the emptiness of paranoia, I suggest you have another look.
I wonder anymore, if anyone cares about the meaning of words, and the assumed implications they carry.
Look, there is no real way to measure for an answer to this question: "Are They Related?"
You would have to either have been a part of the conspiracy, or given the orders to get it done, either way you have no incentive to "spill the beans."
The only alternative I can think of that would "prove" your case, is if you were some sort of mindreader or other.
Besides, it would be my personal opinion, that if someone is inclined to ACT upon these ridiculous warnings, even IF "real," it would be meaningless fodder for a late night talk show host, or a damn good mystery story for a forensics team to sift through.
People talk with such certainty these days. I wonder why that is.
What a revealing confession, that explains much.
What do you think my statement reveals, taken in your own context? I never considered it a matter to confess, that I am a human being with natural born instincts including fear, but also a literate, reasoning being.
Fear is the little death, eating away at your soul moment by moment. Fear denies the full and complete life you've been given, and deserve. Fear distorts and compells irrational behavior, replacing intellectual actions, with emotional reactions.
My first comment about fear was in regard to what seems to me to be a concerted effort among some media conglomerates to portray whatever threats that may or may not exist in a way that amps up people's stress levels. We were told it was a dire national emergency, but it was just a plan to control Iraq's oil resources. It was not evident to me that Iraq was such a huge threat, or had any WMD, or uranium. We had the no-fly zone going on, the UN sanctions in place, every corner of Baghdad covered...also, the 9/11 attackers were all Saudis, who are still attacking us with high oil prices...
From this point of view, it looks like the government uses some media to support their agenda for Iraq, including the war and counterterrorism efforts here at home. They mime the Bush rhetoric, present a lopsided view of the news, and help the White House gloss over a lot of the ugly things that go on every day over there... you know the type of searing images we used to see in every newscast, that helped turn us against the Vietnam war. Rush and his ilk are still harping on the same old junk about safety and patriotism and "it's better than it was before". They help the public delude itself into feeling good about totally disrupting a country which was a fraction of our size. You and I killed, by paying our taxes, many tens of thousands of people and destroyed much. I for one do not feel good about what we've done. I see it as one of the all-time blunders. I want it stopped yesterday.
My fear kicks in when I start thinking about how far the Bush camp can go before it leaves office. I didn't believe their jive from the start, and I see nothing yet that makes the present course any more correct in any way. This bunch have done more bad for this country than good. Will they have blundered us into yet another war before they leave office? Will they further erode the freedoms for which we all are thankful as they carry on the dirty work of building a "democracy"?
That being said, jJack, that's a huge question you asked the other day. What proof do I have that the Bush team all need jail time and moral rehab? I don't have any. I get my info from the radio, TV, newspaper, internet, and people, just like you do. Clearly my opinion means nothing. I'm just a piano player.
But dammit, I truly strongly disagree with Iraq II. Maybe you don't. That's why we vote together, so we don't have to live in fear of each other.
I can't imagine why you think what you think, but you do, and you were able to explain it, in a way that, at the very least, evoked the emotions that compell you feel the way you feel.
That's better than most people are able to do.
Thanks David.
We have all been brought up to know moralistically the difference between the good and the bad and of course select the good and condemning the bad (if not actually 'fighting' the bad) ... that leads to an attempt to go as far as one realistically can in the direction of the good (+) while using the bad (-) as the reference of what one wants to distance themselves from ... especially in the eyes of our peers who we fear would think less of us ... and that often leads to exaggerations voiced from us about how good we are and how we hate and/or distance ourselves from the peer version of what is bad. All of that seems well and good by our standards of what we honorably use for information to make those determinations ... usually information (so-called "facts") supplied from "our side" ... and to 'hell' with the other side and everything they say.
But in reality, considering a larger picture, we each and all really want the very same things in the end ... maybe some want a little more of somethings than the other, but we really all have the very same needs and desires ... to be able to survive with our needs met and have peaceful and loving relationships with others, to have more peace and less stress ...
I think the problems then come from the natural inner philosophies of the differing peoples clashing where one side is more definitive as to methods to be used 'now' and the other side is more laid back and trusting that things will work out on their own ...
The side that feels action on their terms is needed now, begins to feel the other side is not contributing to the 'cause' because they do not get right on board to do it the 'now' way. Soon the 'positive' side sees the other side as the 'negative' side ... and when they say so, it is seen as an unfair 'judgement' against them ...
And of course that is the beginning of the conflict which once embarked upon, accelerates as charges and counter charges are thrown ... ending up in bitter polarization ... the state of much going on today ... and if not moderated some, can eventually lead to an awful lot of violence !
I suspect that because we all have basically the same personal concerns as mentioned at the beginning, when we state our preferred way of handling and solving them, the difference that shows up becomes a form of threat to our own way and we see that as something to divide ourselves from and blame the "other" view for increasing our perceived threat ... what we become fearful of we reject and fight ... what we love (like thinkers) we tend to gather around ... soon we have the polarized "sides" ...
IF we can keep these "truths" in the back of our minds, we just might find more common ground more often which would tend to help solve some of our common problems before they become unsolvable because of the tendency to actually war over the issues ... like begets like, what goes around comes around, and for every action there will be an equal but opposite reaction ... appreciation of natural diversity and cooperation will go a lot farther towards solving all problems than does fighting over things.
We all know this, we just too often do not trust it. When things are so divided it takes a lot more work on 'both' sides to restore some unity. It is a good time to begin.
This nation has been in a philosophical turmoil since it's inception. That won't change anytime soon. Where freedom exists, conflict is a given.
I steer as clear from absolute unity, which is death, as I do from absolute conflict, also death. Only difference is the speed.
Hitler gave both to his people, and that's why lots and lots of Germans got wasted along with the rest. Actually gave them two absolute conflicts, one for each hand, which of course no country except the US could handle. And his vision of absolute Aryan unity threatened the very existence of the world, or at least the life on the surface, for his enemies and his countrymen alike.
jJack, I appreciate your compliment. Thanks for being sane enough to actually understand my statements and keep the discussion going. I look forward to the challenge of defending my thinking, because it's not normal, I'll admit that.
I don't know you, but I assume your views are more along the lines of my redneck farmer brother. I love rednecks, because they're down home. My homies. And my bro is true blue loyal, no better person to have your back. He would defend me in a heartbeat, even with eight stents and a pacemaker, even tho I once called him a f**king racist for referring to dead Iraqi women and babies as "collateral damage". I would do the same for him, because blood's thicker than the mud, as the song says. I'm true blue loyal too. I'm a peace freak who won't cut and run.
I'm not an expert in anything except music, but I'm no fool, and I wasn't born yesterday. I advocate non-violent relations between persons and nations. It seems to me that all this mess we're in now is just leading us down a bad road, very bad. And even though I would stand and defend if war came to my street, I say that now is the time to stop using the military as an arm of foreign policy. I see international conflict as the worst failure our leaders could commit. We are now breeding enemies like locusts, and when their 17 year cycle comes around, woosh, lots of people, Americans and others, will not be doing so well for a while.
Being a rocker, pre-disco vintage, tradition and honor and god and country are terms that I dismiss as too inflexible and old fashioned. These concepts are used continually to work up the dander of the public and manipulate people into supporting whatever the current regime is into. I prefer to party with people and engage in creative pursuits like music and art together. That's kind of what we're doing here, jamming, you know? And man, doesn't the discord sound lovely?
I think unity is overblown as a general human goal, and invariably in history the aims of despots to unite the world under one banner lead to mass harm to all, regardless whether you're under the winning banner. And if your side won, you still buried some of your best citizens along the way.
We need to question this pattern. It has existed since the first time man picked up a stick and realized he could mash heads with it. And it could be our final undoing.
I don't say I advocate peace, or the pursuit of truth, or justice, or anything. These terms are slippery, and one's peace is another's torment. I like a good contest anyway. And I like to challenge people, just to see if they're awake, or maybe even comprehend what I say. In fact, I hope I don't go to heaven, because I think singing praises to great goshamighty all day would be boring as hell. I just think people don't realize how their group identity can lead to all kinds of mayhem, even in something as civic as a soccer match. If you want to stir people up, just say something that tweaks the sensitivities of the group as stated in their charter or their creed or whatnot.
I think you're right that we all have similar concerns as we go about daily life. That's why it's hard to describe what happens when we become enemies. What makes us act so different when we get in a gaggle?
I... whazzat? uh, no, I'm not cleaning it up.
These are the exact reasons, I hold such concepts in honor.
Haven't noticed your name before Rick, but I'll be looking from now on.
This is to let you know that your content has reached at least 20 comments and therefore has been removed from I want it All
Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!