Tom Ridge Putting Osama Tape "in context"

[Stravo]

Tom Ridge currently in a press conference on Fox where he states that he wishes to put the tape "in context"

"We are safer now than we were 6 months ago."

This is a rebuttal to the tape without seeming outright political. Kerry gets one shot at this tape. Bush now has his administration weighing to assure us "we are safe."

"We don't have to go to Orange to increase our security." He states that they will be increasing security in ports and airports in the coming days. OK, so when you raise the security alert it means that its really worthless because you can increase the security without scaring the shit out of the public. So what has been the point in the past? And more importantly isn't this a chickenshit move? You don't raise the security level because you know you will get slammed for doing it on the eve of the election yet you are still increasing security (and telling the people you're doing it).

[Admiral Valdemar]

"We don't have to go to Orange to increase our security."

I read that as they were going to go to the telecoms company for help. Odd.

Can I once more just add how stupid the whole threat level indicator is? I can't think of a more vague and ultimately useless public service.

[Faram]

What the hell do orange mean?

Is there a plan to follow? Or is it just a convinient(sp?) way to scare people?

I saw a dokumentary about thenew way america works now but I cannot say what the diffrence is betveeen green orange red and pink or whatever..

[UCBooties]

Each threat level has certain requiered actions that go along with a change, such as increasing the number of on duty police, setting emergency response teams on prep alert, things like that. Also can affect national gaurd and coast guard activities if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't neccisarily demand increased security in any one place however, it's just a general level of activity among the organization which will have to respond to a terrorist attack. So it is perfectly plausable to raise specific security measures without raising the general threat level. It would be a very bad move to raise the threat level right now because it would be percieved as a scare tactic to influence the election. It could be percieved along the lines of "attack is imminent and it would be dangerous to change leadership." Sure, that's what the Bush campaign has been saying, but the threat level is simultaneously more tangible and less understood. They would need a very good reason to raise it at this point.[/i]

[Darth Wong]

Each threat level has certain requiered actions that go along with a change, such as increasing the number of on duty police, setting emergency response teams on prep alert, things like that. Also can affect national gaurd and coast guard activities if I'm not mistaken.

Pretty meaningless when the alert level always stays roughly the same, isn't it? It's not like it ever drops down to a low level. It's always either "be afraid" or "be very afraid".

[UCBooties]

fir point, I was just trying to point out the mechanics of the system.

[Master of Ossus]

Pretty meaningless when the alert level always stays roughly the same, isn't it? It's not like it ever drops down to a low level. It's always either "be afraid" or "be very afraid".

It's pretty much like the "Fire Danger" warnings. EVERY SINGLE YEAR I have lived in California (20+), and every single year my parents have lived in California (35+) there has been an unusually high risk of fires. When we have wet winters, the risk is high because there's so much vegetation to burn. When we have dry winters, the risk is high because what vegetation there is is very dry. It's a totally ridiculous system. You'd think after 35 years that they would just say, "Well, yeah, okay. The fire danger is pretty average this time," but they never do.

[RogueIce]

I don't know about the whole threat level thing, but I don't see upping security at airports and such to be a bad thing. If in their own little world the terrorists really think they influenced the Madrid elections (please don't get into an argument about that here; this is based solely on what the terrorists want to believe in their little fantasy world), then they might well want to pull that stunt over here. Or, for that matter, any whacko with a point to prove or whatever.

[SirNitram]

Pretty meaningless when the alert level always stays roughly the same, isn't it? It's not like it ever drops down to a low level. It's always either "be afraid" or "be very afraid".

It's pretty much like the "Fire Danger" warnings. EVERY SINGLE YEAR I have lived in California (20+), and every single year my parents have lived in California (35+) there has been an unusually high risk of fires. When we have wet winters, the risk is high because there's so much vegetation to burn. When we have dry winters, the risk is high because what vegetation there is is very dry. It's a totally ridiculous system. You'd think after 35 years that they would just say, "Well, yeah, okay. The fire danger is pretty average this time," but they never do.

Dunno about the Cali system, but I see it range from 'Low' to 'High' on the East Coast. Then again, we get shitloads more rain.

[Master of Ossus]

Dunno about the Cali system, but I see it range from 'Low' to 'High' on the East Coast. Then again, we get shitloads more rain.

That warning system operates on a regional level, here. Every spring, though, one day the news tells us that fire officials are saying the state is at an unusually high risk for wildfires, this year.

[SirNitram]

Dunno about the Cali system, but I see it range from 'Low' to 'High' on the East Coast. Then again, we get shitloads more rain.

That warning system operates on a regional level, here. Every spring, though, one day the news tells us that fire officials are saying the state is at an unusually high risk for wildfires, this year.

No offense, but having been to Cali, the parts where those signs are tend to be dry, hot, and do tend to burst into flames. Idiot people would think fires can't start if it was 'Medium'.

[Stormbringer]

Dunno about the Cali system, but I see it range from 'Low' to 'High' on the East Coast. Then again, we get shitloads more rain.

That warning system operates on a regional level, here. Every spring, though, one day the news tells us that fire officials are saying the state is at an unusually high risk for wildfires, this year.

Well, that's what happens when you live in the most flammable state in the union. I mean really, the only time California isn't having some horrendous fire is when it's sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

[Beowulf]

Well, that's what happens when you live in the most flammable state in the union. I mean really, the only time California isn't having some horrendous fire is when it's sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

You'd be surprised. Sometimes it's on fire while sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

[SirNitram]

Well, that's what happens when you live in the most flammable state in the union. I mean really, the only time California isn't having some horrendous fire is when it's sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

You'd be surprised. Sometimes it's on fire while sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

'The first state fell into the Pacific.. So I declared another one. That one burned down. I declared a third one. That one burned down, fell over, and then slide into the Pacific. But the fourth one stayed there! And that's what you'll get, Arnold.. The sturdiest State in the Union.'