Correlation of Terror Warnings and Bush's Approval Ratings
 

I just found this interesting blog piece through a posting on Boing Boing. Basically, it's a timeline of terror alerts in correlation of bad press for the Bush Administration.

http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_...56476570482138

Make sure to post personal opinions on it.

Personally I dont make as much of it as most left-wingers. They are using this not to increase his poll results, but as a safety insurance in case a terror attack does occur. Just my $0.02.

Personally, I do make much more out of it than most right-wingers. They are using this to increase his poll number and as a safety insurance in case a terror attack does occur. Just my $0.02.

From watching Bush's approval ratings and seeig many of the same events that the link relates to the alerts, I have been able to predict over half of the terror alerts within about a week of when they were released to the public. There's no hindsight involved in what I predicted ahead of time, I watched for significant approval rating drops and events that would draw negative attention to Bush's campaign and staff.

It shouldn't be a shocker. The rating system is essentially meaningless. I don't know anybody who changes anything in their day-to-day based on the color coded terror rating. It's not like they even have anything solid to back up changes in the color.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. For those that work in the financial buildings in the NYC area that had their security increased last week, it does change their day-to-day lives. A lot. For people who live on the other side of the country, it might not. But the information they recieved came from a computer tech who worked with terrorists and they found substantial evidence including pictures and detailed plans of the buildings. So there is your solid evidence.

If you have read the 9/11 Commission Report, you would realize how important these security changes really are. On and before 9/11, most of the country's internal security was very unorganized. With the "terror-threat levels", different agencies in the government are able to adjust to be prepared for any threat that the government receives that is carried out. When it's orange (as it is now), don't be surprised to see more police at airports and guards with machine guns around potential targets. When it's yellow (a step lower), there won't be as many police at airports.

Before you complain about the extra security and terror rating system, I would suggest you read the 9/11 Commission Report and understand why these extra precautions are in place. It wasn't Bush who did this all on his own for his own good, these systems were designed and installed by Republicans and Democrats to make the country more secure and to prevent another terror attack of any kind from happening on American soil. This isn't about politics, it's about the safety of Americans.

i have to say that in SC, when the terror alert was raised, nobody knew or cared in any meaningful way...

in manhattan...totally different story. I went to Grand central the first week i was here and everything was open and only regular police were around with regular guns...I went a couple days ago and it looked like a military base with so many reserve guards around with machine guns looking on menacingly at the crowds. I was not allowed in certain areas to take pics and it was quite a different story than the first time. Downtown in the financial district, it's the same thing, guards everywhere, etc.

I don't think the rest of the country changes as much during the heightened alerts, but it definitely makes a difference here...

On the other hand, i talk to the newyorkers and they don't feel any safer on the whole.

There is a point at which attempting to undercover conspiracy beneath every rock appears startlingly similar to well-known paranoid scenario-creation phenomena.

Agreed, ART, but at that point it's easy for the administration and its supporters to dismiss legitimate complaints as well as paranoid conspiracies.

Isn't it time that the postion of Director of Homeland Security became a non-partisan position?

I actually heard, Tom Ridge, spout off about re-electing Bush the other day... Seems to me that being non-partisan, if only in appearance should be essential to holding that position.

Yep, I'll bet those bastard Republicans are creating the intelligence to justify them too. This was their whole plan. First, get into office. Second, allow America to be attacked. Third, create levels of alerts like those seen on Star Trek. Bush is just a friggin Trekkie and his running mate will be Leonard Nimoy (if he can get him away from Priceline) once Cheney becomes Lord High Commander of the Middle East.

I'm not trying to uncover conspiracy theories (although, I can't speak for the author of the article) here - I just read an interesting article and thought I'd share it with everyone.

Personally though, I don't feel like the Bush Administration has my best interest at heart. Seeing the issuing of terror alerts in relation to bad press sure makes it seem like spin control by the Bush Administration. Actually, it's not even spin control - they're not trying to change the stories to put themselves in a better light - they're flat out saying "HEY! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD!". This seemed especially evident in the days after Edwards was announced as Kerry's running mate and Tom Ridge went on national TV and issued a generic terror warning, without any corresponding changes in the color codes or revealing any specific information. (I think the Daily Show's bit on this was excellent, I wish I could find a clip of it online).

Well I would like to see you put your abilities into action, please update this the next time you know that there will be an increase in the terror warnings.

It seems to me, that these increases in terror alerts are a mechanism to infringe on our individual rights while appearing to protect us. More police on the steets means increased observation of the average person on the streets... Big Brother to the rescue...

and so what, what is it that you are doing that you don't like police watching you when you are on the streets? If it could have kept the OKC bombings from happening by haveing police look out for unauthorized trucks parked infront of federal buildings, well I for one would welcome it. I am not hiding anything.

Getting back to the original article...some of these events are obviously correlated to raises in the terror alert level, but not all of them. If they were all within the same timeframe, say a week, of unfavorable political events then the correlation would be much stronger. Some of these alerts though take place 10-18 days after the political event. We weren't given criteria for which political events would be noted for correlation with terror alerts. I didn't see Bush's pretzel choking, Ashcroft shrouding the statue of Justice, "healthy skies" debacle, or congressional defeat of ANWAR proposal (some of these things may have taken place before the adoption of the terror alert system). Still though given the unscientific nature of this timeline, and the possibility of sheer coincidence, it makes a fairly strong case for conspiracy. Do I believe the Bush admin. would tweak the terror alert system for political gain/influence? Yes. This is after all the administration which used the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 to goad the public into an unrelated war in Iraq. If you deny that fact you probably haven't read Richard Clarke's book.

yeah it has nothing to do with the fact that if something does happen and the government didn't give out some sort of warning the liberals would try to have their asses. It is simply just trying to cover their collective asses. when something comes up that has any potential of being a warning I am in favor of hearing about it. I don't care whats going on politically. typical liberals, complain if there are no warnings and complain when there is warnings.

The effectiveness of the terror alert system is not being debated here. The discussion here is whether that system is being used for political gain and media sway. I say yes, probably.

i've had problems with the "war on terror" since it was "declared." quantified and correlated, this data re-enforces my thinking that it is a shepherding device.

the bush administration's brilliant use of mass communications, especially message marketing, brand building, and heuristics, should be taught in schools. even before the "war," bush never appeared to launch any initiative without a visual brand blasted behind him on a screen and his messages are distilled to easy pull quotes and sound bites that have no substantive value, but somehow connect with listeners at a gut level. i think frank luntz is the real man behind the curtain on all of it, but i give a lot of props to karen hughes.

if you step outside yourself and actually think about it, the "war on terror" makes no sense. it is pure PR, and it preys upon the worst fears of the common citizen to achieve nearly facist power. i have deep criticisms for Kerry not taking this head on and declaring an end to the "war" and remind us all "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." the threat of terrorism is a simple fact of existence, and it has ALWAYS been there. we need to learn to live with it and get on with living. one might as well declare war on air.

We've been living with it for 30 years since these people declared war on us.

No we cant do a war on terror, but we can bring war to those that with to impose it on us. We can go to war with those that fund those people. We can do many things about it.

Oh, and your plan reminds me of a quote:

"The only thing evil needs to exist is for good men to do nothing."

Sorry but I will never learn to "live with it".

by your use of the term "these people," i see you failed to grasp my point. "these people" are everyone on the planet.

everyone is a potential terrorist, including you seaver. you just need to feel isolated enough and get good and pissed and then realize that the only way for you to get your point across is to do something fucked up like kill a bunch of kids at your school, take a gun into the capitol building on a sunny friday afternoon just in time for the evening news, or climb a tower in austin texas and start whacking coeds with a high powered rifle. or you could pull out that old village people indian outfit and dump some tea into a harbor. you don't even need a plane.

the war on terror is a war on everyone with no possible end. from a power standpoint, it is a beautiful creation... just like the cold war, only better because the enemy is so vague and ambiguous. just like the war on drugs, but with more focused impact.

but you need to keep reminding everyone that they are at war... and i have never seen a people who are at war that needed this much reminding. the war on terror is advertised more than coca cola to maintain top of mind awareness. and these alert scales we're discussing here are a highly effective means. the only way we know they make us safer is because we've been told they make us safer. i'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but i am not seeing anyone earn much credibility.

you've lived with the threat of terror all your life, so did your parents and so did theirs. the only difference is now, our leaders have figured out that they can stay in power if they keep scaring the shit out of us. unfortunately for them, you just can't maintain that strategy for long before people develop enough tolerance to not be scared anymore.

and when you aren't scared, you can think for yourself again and start making some decent decisions. like voting for people who don't hire the morons who ran the pentagon when they bought $200 toilet seats, but now work in the private sector so they can spend even more for them. i'd like to see my tax dollars spent on something that won't end up roadside trash in the sand halfway around the planet. like my kids education, a little bit of health care... you know, stooopid-bottom-of-the-maslov-pyramid-type-shit like that. is that evil?

And by your suggestion we shouldn't have police because people will naturally murder, rape, torture, and all around create mayhem, it'll just happen.

You never saw those riding in a car with Hitler posters? Kinda hard not to know you're in the middle of a World War, yet they were still "advertising" it.

The toilet seats cost $200 not because of stupidity but because of the specifications. They had to withstand near supersonic speeds at ultra-low pressure, while being self-sealing in order to prevent explosive decompression (in the case it might be occupied at the time). High specifications matched with not too much production always equals expensive costs, its not like someone just looked over it on the piece of paper like many are lead to be.

I've never been scared by terrorists, and I dont like the implication that I'm somehow blinded and making a wrong choice because it's different than yours. I know how bullies work and the only way to stop them is to hit them back. Now these people are playing defense and running low on funds, which is how I'd rather have my enemies. Instead of ignoring them for 30 years and letting them get their shit together.

Hooray, we agree on something. I am tired of the "zinger" of a $200 dollar hammer related by people who never even saw these things for fact and never considered that things ordered for military situations just might have to work better than the stuff in your home.

Regarding the original post:

I've been hoping someone would do a correlation such as this. It's becoming so obvious at this point that we are being manipulated by the Terror Alert system. And this week the Bush adminstration started hinting again that 'they' might want to disrupt our democratic process.

I realize this treads into conspiracy-theorist territory, but I won't be surprised at all if Osama bin Laden is finally 'captured' just in time to help Bush's re-election campaign. I'm not saying they already have him--even though one 'erroneous' <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/29/bin_laden_arrest_report_denied/">report </a> already came out of Pakistan to that effect--I'm just saying I won't be surprised.