Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Shall We Dance?
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
I have no idea what the reactions of Americans would be, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question.
We are reading reports that Al Qaeda is building strength to 2001 levels and Chertoff has a gut feeling something might happen here during the summer since summer seems to be the preferred time for Al Qaeda to strike.
My question is: How do you think the American public would react if Al Qaeda were successful in another attack in our country?
Do you think they would rally around the flag the way they did on 9/11/2001?
Do you think they will blame the president for not keeping us safe, even though we have not had an attack on our soil or our facilities since 9/11/2001?
Do you think they will blame Congress for sending mixed signals over the current war?
Or do you think they just won’t care?
How do you think this will affect the presidential race, if at all?
I’d be interested in reading your thoughts and feel free to add whatever you think I didn’t include.
Written by ~J~
Big Mo Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:05 amVisit Big Mo
J, Ayschlay, speaking strictly of that AP story from yesterday, you should be aware that the headline and the story itself did not eve agree with each other. John Hawkins at Right Wing News took a look at the whole AP story and realized that the headline and the way the story is written created a totally false impression.
To read it as-is, and the way most people absorb news (most read headlines, fewer read the first few paragraphs, fewer still drill down for the full details), you get highly misleading information. To wit:
The headline says that AQ is “Now as Strong as in Summer of 2001.”
But that’s not what the story itself says:
“Al Qaeda is “considerably operationally stronger than a year ago” and has “regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001,” the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report’s conclusions. “They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States.”
The group also has created “the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives,” the official quoted the report as saying.”
Meaning, this thinly-sources story claims AQ is stronger now than it was last year, and is regrouping to an extent not seen since before they attacked us.
It is NOT saying they are as strong as they were in 2001.
Semantics? Am I aguing over nothing? I don’t think so, because back in journalism school, when I worked on the Missourian (a real daily newspaper that J-school students put out) that headline would have been rejected as inaccurate.
Ayschlay Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:18 amVisit Ayschlay
I see what you mean about the AP headline. The LA Times headline I posted on is also a bit distant from the content of the story. The headline reads: Risk of terror strike grows, but then the subheading says there’s no known threat to the US, and then the story identifies Chertoff as the only one thinking the risk of a terror strike to the US is growing while other intelligence officials disagree.
Big Mo Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:20 amVisit Big Mo
Thanks. That’s not to say the underlying premise is wrong, though. AQ probably is, and has been, reconstituting. That’s the nature of war. When war heats up, naturally you’ll bring in new recruits to replace losses, etc.