Terror Threat based on three year old data - Dean was right again.

[mzmolly]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040803/ts_nm/security_alert_dc_29

Ridge's appearance in New York at the Citigroup building named on Sunday as a potential al Qaeda target came as U.S. terrorism intelligence has come under fire again, this time for forcing police in New York, Washington and New Jersey to massively increase security based on old information.

...

New York City Speaker Gifford Miller, a Democrat with ambitions of being elected mayor, told reporters, "I would hope they are not playing politics with this announcement."

He said the city spends about $1 billion a year to battle terrorism and that Washington was, "still not providing us with the support we need to ensure the safety of American citizens and they are not providing any alternatives either."

The city now has 4,000 fewer police than on Sept. 11, 2001, and this year New York was given $5.47 per head in homeland security grants --the second lowest in the nation.

:crazy:

[David__77]

1. While an attack could indeed occur...

...I would like it if progressive leaders would more strongly object to these non-specific "warnings" that serve no purpose other than for political mobilization.

[mzmolly]

5. Welp, as usual - Dean did.

:)

[Inland]

2. All you have to do is imagine the scummiest thing Bush can do

and it turns out to be true indeed.

[TheFarseer]

3. It's beyond me

how anyone could be swayed to vote bush because of a terror alert. Anyone who is should be put on medication right away. If there was actually an attack, maybe I could understand being converted, although to me it would mean that whatever bush is doing isn't working.

[mzmolly]

4. What I dont get is why we dont call Bush on this shit asking how we are

safer, if he's giving monthly terror warnings?