Slate's Bizbox
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

John Ashcroft Briefs the Press on the Terrorist Threat

By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2001, at 6:40 PM ET

Q: Mr. Ashcroft, your department has issued a statement saying that a terrorist attack could occur at any moment—

A: That’s right.

Q: —but you won’t say what it is.

A: That’s right.

Q: Can you characterize the source of your information?

A: I cannot—I cannot get into the source of the information, for obvious, I think, reasons.

Q: Does it rhyme with “Hal Dayda”?

A: Pardon?

Q: Well, I mean, that isn’t a real person’s name, of course. I’m just saying, does it rhyme with that.

A: Oh, I see. (Whispers with FBI director Robert Mueller.) Yes, I think that’s a fair characterization.

Q: What about the terrorist threat itself?

A: I wish we could say more. We can’t.

Q: Does it involve something blowing up?

A: Of course, I can’t say.

Q: Oh, come on. If nothing blows up, how bad can it be?

A: Now you’re trying to trick me into saying something I shouldn’t …

Q: Let me make it easier for you. Is this attack likely to cause a loud sound? Something like, “Kablooie”?

A: Well, attacks aren’t very often silent. So, yes.

Q: Will there be smoke?

A: Ah, well, sure, probably.

Q: Will the smoke be in the shape of any particular kind of food?

A: Pardon?

Q: I was thinking of a mushroom.

A: You know I can’t answer that!

Q: Is the threat animal, vegetable, or mineral?

A: Well, now you’re just being silly …

Q: Is it bigger than a breadbox?

A: Pardon?

Q: The bomb. Is it bigger than a breadbox?

A: I didn’t say it was a bomb!

Q: The generator of noise and smoke, then. Will it be bigger than a breadbox?

A: The smoke? Will the smoke be bigger than a breadbox? Of course.

Q: No, I mean the thing that makes the smoke.

A: How the heck should I know?

Q: Well, you’re the one saying we’re under threat of imminent attack!

A: We are.

Q: Attack from what?

A: Look, we’re under threat of attack—

Q: I got that—

A: And I’m just saying—

Q: Yes?

A: I’m just saying that if you happen to die along with a great many other people within the next 48 hours, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Q: But—

A: Because I did.

Q: And therefore—

A: And therefore citizens should take steps to avoid being the victim of a terrorist attack.

Q: Such as?

A: In a free society, that’s a matter of individual choice.

Thank you.

(The foregoing has been a free translation of this Justice Department transcript.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

The Justice Department was right to contact Law Enforcement officials on this matter. Their press conference should have informed us that law enforcement had been contacted, but that details were scarce. This appears to be all of the information they have and it is all the American Public needs to hear. The Bush administration has such a hard time sharing information, that when they do it, they are not very good at it. They don't seem to understand what information is relevant. Members of the press looking for something sensational, make the problem worse by asking accusatory questions. Administration officials lose focus and take up defensive positions, making it seem like they are hiding something when they have nothing to hide. The reason Giuliani has thrived is that he's not afraid to say "We don't know, but here is what we are doing to find out." In contrast, Ashcroft clearly tries to imply "We know, but we won't tell you." It undermines Americans trust in him.

--Zorro

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


So now we're on heightened heightened alert, to be followed in a few weeks, as Ashcroft's boys put their new counter-terror super patriot protection act powers to work by superduper, triple-serious heightened heightened double alert, because they'll be able to glean even more credible but incredible vague threats…

Who knows, maybe there's method to Ashcroft's seeming madness. Stoking fear takes our minds off all those detainees who are being held without access to lawyers, makes us more willing to put up airport security by underpaid, undertrained amateurs which basically boil down to asking you more slowly if you packed your own bag and looking at your photo ID a few seconds longer, and lets us feel relief that our email might be carnivored for our own good.

--Nick Carbone

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Imagine if...
Hiatt | What if McCain had waged his campaign based on respect?
Editorial: Meddlesome PalinKing: The Danger of Palin Power