[dawn53]

To those that disagree with the threat warnings, just look at Israel.

A tiny country, yet they announce general threat warnings with no real specifics. Seems it would be much easier to nail down a specific threat in that country, but their warning was general, in effect.

They could assault us by sea, they may be suicide bombers, they may target hospitals, etc. etc. etc.

If Israel can't offer solid warnings, how would the United States be able to offer a warning.

And say they warned about an event in NYC and an event happened in LA, do you know how the media would howl.

I think general warnings are just fine, lets people be alert, and lets the terrorists know we realize there is a threat.

[Mo1]

If Israel can't offer solid warnings, how would the United States be able to offer a warning.

Exactly .. and if anyone thinks the things happening in Israel can't happen here .. they are fools

[homemom]

Tom Ridge and all are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They're criticized for issuing alerts, criticized for not issuing specific enough alerts . . . but you can sure bet they'd be criticized if an attack took place and no alert was issued, or one that was specific was wrong, or not specific enough.

Personally, my view is that they're doing what they think is best for the country. If they were all Dems in there, I would NOT believe that. But the administration as a whole consists of practicing Christians. Pres. Bush has proven that he will do what he feels is right for the country, and the safety of our country, regardless of what the polls say.

Just MHO, of course! :-)

It will be interesting to see what the 2:30 announcement is all about. God bless and keep us all safe.