I have little doubt there is a heightened rational terrorism fear today.

[cthulu2016]

No snark or sarcasm. I take the current world-wide terror alert at face value.

Under Bush I would not have made that assumption. Under Obama, I do.

It is not Obama's style. He has hitched his self esteem to a handful of differences between himself and Bush, and I expect him to be stubborn in those few things. And I think the policy-argument-by-bogus-terror-alert is on that list.

That is not to say that Obama doesn't make cringe-worthy security arguments. Just that he would not (knowingly) buttress them with specific but bogus warnings, let alone actually closing a score of embassies. (As opposed to unspecified intimations in argument.)

The government spins 24/7 for the need for trillions in defense, the need for secrecy, the need for anti-terror data dragnets, etc..

So there will probably never be a time when a terror alert would not be 'convenient' for some interest, some program, some philosophy, some candidate.

Assuming a terror alert can possibly be real and rational, then now is as likely a time for one as any other.

Not only are some things in the world coincidences, the laws of probability demand coincidences. (As well as demanding that a number of highly improbable things happen... just not as often as the probable ones.)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States issued a global travel alert Friday, citing an al-Qaida threat that also caused the State Department to close 21 embassies and consulates this weekend in the Muslim world.

http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/08/02/threat-closes-embassies-muslim-world-for-day/9hsRC3mnsijmJf1np2qysI/story.html

[Safetykitten]

1. The terror warning stylings of President Obama. That is a classic. "It is not Obama's style"

[KoKo]

2. We can take it at face value...but, also have skepticism.

I don't have a problem believing that it is probably realistic (given what we've been up to with our "undeclared wars&quot that there may be threats worthy of posting an alert. But, given the experience of those of us who've kept informed in the years since "9/11" we should be wary that these alerts can still be used politically for advantage of the MIC.

So...if it's real then they have done the right thing. If it's not...we will find out later. Better to be safe than sorry on the first go.

[BellaKos]

3. I agree with you, OP

Except that Obama has never had an NSA scandal before. Just sayin'.

[RobertEarl]

4. Well

Good that they are saying something to us.

Remember when Bush was told hijack was in the works?

We heard not a word. If they had told us something, it might have stopped 9/11 on 9/10. But they kept it all a big secret, didn't Bush?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. sorry

Skepticism is the order of the day.

[cthulu2016]

6. Skepticism is not merely skepticism of the official story

That is mere paranoia.

Skepticism includes skepticism of the alternatives.

I am skeptical of the alert, and even more skeptical that it is a sham.

On balance, legitimate seems likely than sham to me, after weighing the alternatives skeptically.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. given recent history

I disagree vehemently

Police states need to keep the population afraid...period

[cthulu2016]

8. That's more a slogan than an argument.

Yes, Police states need to keep the population afraid.

True.

It does not follow from that statement that the current embassy closings are a stunt to terrorize the population, or even that they are likely to be.

Unless one believes that there could not be a real threat. If that is stipulated then I would agree everything is presumptively a stunt.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. Then why don't they stick to informing the authorities. We don't need to know about it.

I didn't watch the news today. Haven't watched it all day. I refuse to watch the fear mongering. I have had a beautiful and peacful day watching the rain fall down on the trees and grass. I'm sure my government would rather me be fearful of what the boogyman could do to me, but I think I'll just stick to watching the rain.

[cthulu2016]

11. Closing 21 embassies will be noticed

If they said they were all closed on very short notice for simultaneous redecorating, and all just happened to be in the Muslim world, that wouldn't be very reassuring.

I don't think terrorizing the populace is the driver here. I think it is mostly Covering Your Ass... and kind of silly on that level. It's not like there would be post-attack brownie points given because there was a vague warning, but CYA runs deep in political types and intel types alike.

I do not believe that Obama would close 21 Embassies as a stunt.

Now, do PR concerns of the moment have a shaping effect? Of course. No way around it. People are influenced by their interests.

But, "I think this is a wee bit higher profile because of NSApalooza," is a very different thing from, "this is bullshit," or, "ginned up threat."

[liberal_at_heart]

12. If they need to close 21 Embassies so be it. I hope everyone is safe. I don't need to know about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Not a slogan

If they need to close them for valid reasons...the war on terror is a failed exercise. But the announcement of a world wide alert strikes me of a certain color coded DHS stunt. Sorry...yes, some of us are that cynical any longer.

Or maybe aware. Trust me, if I could move, away from the US...I would.

[Rex]

9. Well is he using the Kool-Aid chart of Terrible Colors?

As long as he does not try and insult my intelligence, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, unlike Dubya, he is actually a REAL president and not some facsimile creature.