WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. government terror warnings to local police and citizens fail to give the specific information many authorities say is needed to protect the public, a congressional report said on Monday.
The report follows a series of official warnings about possible attacks -- most recently voiced last week by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -- which lacked new intelligence or details on the threat and how to respond. The report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, was based on survey of 28 agencies and 56 states. Those responding "generally indicated that they did not receive specific threat information and guidance, which they believe hindered their ability to determine and implement protective measures," the report said.
Some critics have accused President Bush's administration of using terrorism warnings as a political tool. Bush has made the fight against global terrorism a major theme of his campaign for reelection.
The administration denies playing politics with terror threats, but a GAO official said the warning system's credibility could be undermined by vague announcements.
"When the government gives warnings without more information about why they're giving them ... that inevitably leads to people questioning whether the timing is a diversion, or politically motivated," Randall Yim, the head of GAO's homeland security division, told Reuters.
The report urged the Department of Homeland Security to give "specific information about the nature, location and timing of the threat, and guidance on action to take."
A failure to deliver specific information in terror warnings can leave agencies unable to gauge risk or develop an effective response, it said.
It recommended that the department publicize threats quickly and through multiple channels, and said many authorities reported they had first learned about threat warnings from media sources.
Government officials have said that the nature of terrorist threats and the classified information on which they are often based make it difficult to give more detailed information.
But Yim said recent warnings may be counterproductive. "They didn't say what was new and they didn't suggest any additional measures to be taken other than please be a little bit more vigilant and please go about your shopping. I think that that really attacks the credibility of the government warning system."
So a government employee is stumping for Kerry now? That's no big surprise considering his history.
His take is also completely irrelevent. I bet he's fishing for details that he may not otherwise have access to, in order to give his liberal buddies a chance to spin.