along the same lines in terms of security the US has decided to extend
some closures
at embassies and consulates over security concerns
if you looked at the map up where these embassy and consulate closures are it's
a pretty big area goes
its Africa its Middle East that even at a gas car off the coast of Africa
up 21 embassies and consulates
were closed yesterday and then some will continue to be close the state
department says
this was out of an abundance of caution and not a reaction to a new threat other
than the one we heard ov
al Qaeda planning a major terrorist attack if the threats
are known I i've a lotta questions about this and I i'm
I'm gonna try to talk through it and hopefully I know that you will
tell me if I'm going of course in some way my thought process here
if the threats are known to be related to a specific embassy in other words
specific at embassies in US embassies in North Africa
period US Embassy specifically and consulates in a particular country
Libya for example if the threats are known to be specific to
21 embassy our country but this reaction to close 21 embassies & consulates is
because if that general
turmoil in the area the general threat of al Qaeda
attack being planned as we heard about then
does it really make sense to close them or
wouldn't the terrorists just wait for them to reopen in other words if al
Qaeda terrorists really were focused on
we want to attack an embassy in
Libya in New in northern Africa okay
well the US has decided to close those for three days your plans
aren't necessarily thrown completely for a loop if you just have to wait a few
days another in in order to make that attack happen
at the same time the fact that
the embassies were closed over sexual a a large distance I mean think about it
I we've got I in New in Libya
we have embassies closed and in that a gas car we have embassies closed that's
a really
long-distance doesn't that suggest that authorities
don't really know exactly where these potential threats
exist if they did they wouldn't have to close such a large area now the
counter-argument to that as well
closing such a large area is a cover so that the terrorists don't
realize American authorities know exactly where the attack will be there
for they close the large area
to throw them off but really the authorities know exactly where the
threat is
something about this doesn't make sense to me and
and again I'm brought back to the question i've if we have to shut down
20 embassies & consulates as far apart as Libya and Madagascar
are does that say that we should be confident
in the authorities and Indian the agencies that are monitoring this type
of thing
or do we have to believe one of two things neither of which brings me click
great pleasure to talk about option 1
that there is actually a lack of competence among
these authorities or number two these
threats and announcements about potential attacks
are actually being used to manipulate
American feelings about surveillance
about foreign policy about involvement overseas
and this is really one of those issues that goes beyond Democrats and
Republicans it really does this is
we can point to individual parties
that are bigger offenders when it comes to particular aspect if the security
state
but by and large this is this is the political system the two-party system in
the United States we've got to be aware that we've gotta be questioning these
things
and that does not mean that their is no desire to hurt americans that exists
factually speaking that exists
the question and it has been since 9/11 was used to go into Iraq
how is it how is the threat of terror used
to as a pretext or to get compliance from individuals to carry out
certain foreign policy goals