Can We Stop The Next Attack? : TIME Magazine Cover Story

Sensational, Hyped, Bad Journalism:
This is NOT a book but a reprint of a short Time magazine article. The sensational article doesn't report anything new regarding US security or terrorism. The main point of the article was to hype that a select group of Federal agencies were aware of a probe (entitled Dragonfly), which involved a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal being secreted into New York City for the purpose of being detonated by terrorists in another Jihad strike against the US. "Dragonfire" was investigated by Federal officials and was fortunately deemed to be unfounded, just the nonsense of a "fabricator". If the American media had actually been doing its job, it would have reported enormously upon the numerous claims during the 1990's of small tactical nuclear weapons being sold off by disgruntle and financially needy Russian officers. And a 10-kiloton device is believed to be among the weapons missing from the Russian stockpile, although this has not been definitively confirmed. The international media heavily reported upon this issue and kept following the issue. Since this is Time magazine, an entertainment magazine, it prints a panic article that basically reports that the Federal government kept an "intelligence alert" under wraps, one which had the potential to cause widespread panic if it was largely disseminated. Dah, what does Time magazine expect? For all security agencies (including international agencies) to tell everyone each lead and each scenario that they are investigating? Any idiot knows that would be counterproductive to any investigation. Time needs to concentrate on REAL investigative journalism.

Feeding the Culture of Fear - a Jagged Little Pill:
This article is an excellent example of the baseless, harmful paranoia spread by our mass media. These two journalist are clearly lusting for readership attraction by scare tactics (following the dictum, "if it bleeds, it leads"). Calabresi and Ratnesar hype alleged dangers and exploit readers to fear the wrong things, instead of doing hard investigative journalism. Our attention on these fears diverts us from examining more difficult societal issues, such as global dependency, alternative energy sources, state of Israel, gun control, and global poverty. Since 9/11 the US has had proposals for a national ID card, a missile defense system, legalized torture, suspension of writ of habeas corpus, a homeland security infrastructure that is heavily reliant on security technologies of questionable value. Essentially the only thing that has changed that would have prevented 9/11 is locked airline cabin doors and the recent general awareness that cooperating with a hijacker might not be the best policy for passengers. Unless you enjoy being manipulated, this article will help you recognize fear mongering for what it really is, and rationally and skeptically evaluate how your emotions are played like a fiddle.

NOT WELL WRITTEN:
This e-Doc is available for FREE on the Internet on several websites. There is nothing NEW in this article and one has to question the reasoning behind publishing this article.

Moron Reporters:
This is the same moran reporter, Calabresi, who interviewed Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector, and asked him about what he would call his exercise video (implying that he is like Jane Fonda). Talk about BAITING. Calabresi claimed Ritter was a traitor in the interview. I wouldn't put much TRUST in whatever this reporter claims.

Do fish sneeze?:
This article is fish food. One has to wonder if this reporting is true. Contrary to the usual image of journalists as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the elite groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order. This article systematically fails to provide the kind of information that people need to make sense of government security agencies. Calabresi was paid to change the subject and to frighten us instead of really exploring venality and corruption in government.