Replies

You know, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

First people complained that they weren't forewarned that there had been a lot of chatter and unspecific warnings prior to 9/11.

So they started to keep us abreast when the level of unspecific threat changed.

That leads to people complaining that since they can't be specific, they should just keep it to themselves.

I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of the people complaining about the first are the same ones complaining about the second.

You know, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. First people complained that they weren't forewarned that there had been a lot of chatter and unspecific warnings prior to 9/11. So they started to keep us abreast when the level of unspecific threat changed. That leads to people complaining that since they can't be specific, they should just keep it to themselves. I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of the people complaining about the first are the same ones complaining about the second.

The administration brought this upon themselves when they decided to lie about not having some prior knowledge about 9/11.

They were faced with a decision right after 9/11.

They decided to lie about having no prior knowledge so that people would put their trust in the government, instead of questioning the effectiveness and competence of that government. This would make it easier to pass the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc...., as well as increase the popularity of incumbents.

If they had told the truth, it would have resulted in them having to replace many senior bureaucrats, and it would have likely resulted in them repealing many laws so that the feds could concentrate on fighting terror. Seeing how inept their gov't really was, more Americans would buy guns for themselves and insist on more liberal CCW laws.

But this is certainly nothing new. Klinton did the same thing after OKC.