Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Purposes?

 Related: Big Sis Breaks Out “Heightened” Terror Alert As PATRIOT ACT Extension Heads Back To House Floor

Washington’s Blog
Feb 11, 2011

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security – Janet Napolitano – just told congress that the U.S. might be facing the greatest threat of terrorist attacks since 9/11:

And in some ways, the threat today may be at its most heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago.

We should be afraid … right?

Well, as I’ve repeatedly noted, FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”.

Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.
Given that so many have said that terror warnings have been used for political purposes, is it possible that the current warnings about heightened threats are also politically motivated?



Well, Congress is currently voting on whether or not to renew the Patriot Act.
There is a lot of opposition to renewing the Patriot Act (and see this) and so – if people were going to use terrorism fearmongering for a political purpose – this would be a logical time to use it.

Indeed, fearmongering has been connected with Patriot Act extensions before.
Specifically, in 2006 – only hours after sensors in a U.S. Senate office building detected a nerve agent – key Senators suddenly reversed direction and announced a capitulation to the White House’s demands on the renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act.

Read the article