Are they trying to say that some intelligence may not be 100% accurate? No way. We only accept info when it’s concrete and indisputable.
And Newsweek has apparently noticed that there are politics involved with the terror alert system. Really.
So here we are, two and a half years after 9/11, and terror alerts are politically motivated and might not be based on credible evidence. So to hell with them.
We’ve seen attacks on American soil. Critics of Bush and the GWOT (World War 4) complain that the administration is so focused on Iraq that they are ignoring terrorism. And the warnings, vague though they are, are dismissed as political trickery. (Don’t forget that Hermann Goering pointed out that all you need to do is keep people scared.)
Makes you wonder what the reaction might have been on September 4th, 2001, if a bunch of Arabs were arrested, airline security quadrupled, and Special Forces sent into Afghanistan.
Less than two dozen men are going to destroy the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and maybe the Capitol or the White House? With hijacked airliners?
UPDATE: And don’t forget that the ACLU is fighting airline banned passenger lists. I would have like to see the government try to pull that stunt after the August 6th PDB. They are having trouble doing it after 9/11. But Bush was just screwing around on his ranch when he should have been stopping the hijackers based on information of questionable credibility from questionable sources…