There have been major security preparedness activities underway regarding the alleged threat of a major attack on the continental United States during early 2009. Reportedly, despite having no concrete leads, some intelligence reportedly gathered by the major intelligence organizations over the course of the past six months has been strongly suggestive that an attack might take place during the Presidential Inauguration, when the US Government is undergoing an exchange of power.
Reports by such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and the candidates running for office themselves during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, have preceded Goverment Security Experts and Homeland Security and the FBI, the Capitol Police and the US Military Leadership, who are busy planning exhaustive security measures for Washington's Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009. Just to be safe, they are providing extensive security at the Inaugural itself and for the numerous celebrations surrounding it. But is that enough, is America truly safe? Are we leaving ourselves vulnerable due to the necessity to focus our attentions on the Presidential change of administration?
The Politics of Inauguration Day Terror Attacks is quite a tricky subject. There have been a number of studies after threats were taken seriously but no attack surfaced during past inaugurations, most recently in 2005.The enclosure links associated with this Post takes us back to the 2005 era and a study of presumed Inaugural Attack Threats forecast at that time (then DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and others are quoted).
Speaking of Politics, there are those who feel it critical to establish themselves as a "true threat to Terrorism" by calling out claims that the "terrorists will attack as soon as I take office" (prophetic words if an attack takes place in January).
We have included a link to Hilary Clinton's campaign words regarding such an attack she forecast would take place moments after she (when she was running for President) was inagurated.
Last but not least, there are those in the Press who spend an enormous amount of time analyzing anti-terror preparations to such a degree that they might as well lay out a roadmap for Terrorists to follow when they are seeking a way around the security. Is America losing its sophistication borne during World War II, the old adage "loose lips sink ships?"
We've included an audio report from Ari Shapiro speaking in detail about the extensive security arrangements surrounding the Inaugural for the highly liberal National Public Radio. It is not clear NPR's political position, however they clearly are on the side of Freedom of Speech. There clearly is a conflict between Freedom of Speech and being Ready, the phenomenon known as 'war nerves' often hits those who think they've detected or seen a terrorism attack in progress or in planning, and it can be terribly difficult to differentiate between a report and reality.
In fact, due to the tendancy today by the Authorities to backlash at anyone offering an opinion or checking out a story (even among the Press) about such an attack, many have become fearful of reporting what they have observed to such as the FBI or their local police for fear of being automatically type cast as being among "the usual nutcases", a cliched behavior that Advances Magazine has verifiably determined is really quite common among the FBI and other counter terrorism groups. Many believe they really do not want to hear from the public or anyone even trying to verify whether a story told them was true or not, as likely to prosecute the reporting party as they are to investigate.
Is America now in a position where "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome, or, in reality, the belief everyone is "the boy who cried wolf" could prevent us from properly responding to a serious attack?
Are our Authorities so skeptical that one would ever take place, would the FBI, DHS and top government levels simply conclude that public reports were flights of fiction or fancy? Could terror groups or those with a negative agenda take advantage of the situation by getting proxies to spread hoaxes and plant false stories just to irritate the counter terror groups and get them to adopt a position of total disbelief?
Are international terror groups leveraging "boy who cried wolf" backlashes so as to keep US Security in the dark: so that once our guard is really down, they can hit the USA with another 9/11 magnitude attack?
An attack on the Inauguration has been labeled by some as being a "send off" for the Bush Administration and a "slap down" for the Obama Administration by rumorors and critics alike, BOLO has raised a few more questions for the General Public:
Do you think the Inauguration represents a target that Al Qaeda or other Terror Group might want to attack? What political gain will they have disrupting what might be a newer, more pacifist US administration? Will America look weak to the rest of the world?
How will the outgoing administration look, if terrorists succeed at attracting attention away from the Inaugural Celebration? The incoming administration which has expressed considerably less enthusiasm for an aggressive War on Terror?
Do you feel that America's domestic security programs are adequate, inadequate or do you believe that the whole terror program is just one big fairy story? There are some who think 9/11 was a setup, with theories ranging from the implausible: US Government involvement to the more likely: wealthy international business interests becoming wealthier by eliciting a massive US Government response to Terrorism (and associated aggressive buying policies), so as to supplement their business revenues which have been lagging since the end of the Cold War? Your opinion is important to this blog. We are not interested in weird opinions, we're interested in EVERY OPINION... Here are the links to three key articles that frame the issue
1.0 Hillary Clinton on Terror Attack on Inauguration
2.0 National Public Radio
Post your coments here...