Thursday, July 29, 2004

BS: When is a warning not a warning?

When it's bullshit. This is starting to get ridiculous. Via Yahoo/AP [my emphasis added]:
White House - AP Cabinet & State [note the news category]
FBI Issues Terror Warning for Calif., N.M.
2 hours, 14 minutes ago
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The FBI warned police in California and New Mexico that it received information about possible terrorist activity in their states. However, the warning wasn't specific about particular targets or a method of attack, a federal law enforcement official said Thursday.

The FBI decided to pass along the threat information but warned that it was considered unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, said the official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

The vague warning was distributed to authorities in California, New Mexico and some other Western states the official did not identify.

U.S. officials earlier this month warned that a regular stream of intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said the government does not have specific knowledge about where, when or how an attack might take place.

Security was extremely tight at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this week. No terrorist-related activity has been reported.

So what the hell are you telling us? At what point is it fair to say, "If you don't have anything of substance to tell us, shut the f--k up."? It's getting harder and harder to believe that these warnings are not merely political in motivation and designed to incite fear or distract from larger stories or issues. Gee, anyone giving a major speech tonite? Get something else out there on the news, quick.

Since the President seems to have an affinity for children's books, would someone please give him a copy of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

No comments: