Replies

About a week or two ago, there was another series of warnings/alerts/what-have-you -- and, the next day, Fox News interviewed a guy who said that the reason for the alerts was the bad guys were on the loose with something like 20 tactical nukes.

The story at that time, as I recall it, was that our guys were trying to intercept them before they could do any damage, and the timeframe was between then, and the end of the year.

Then, all of a sudden, we didn't hear anything about it. The story, as dramatic as it was, government-issued alerts and all, just fell off the edge of the world and disappeared.

Then, today (well, yesterday, I guess; it's officially Monday AM now), out of the blue, comes the latest warning -- on a Sunday, with zero warning, catching the news media off guard (they're not equipped for news to happen on an off-day, I guess), and, with ZERO mention of the last alert/warning series.

So, I am thinking that the two are quite possibly connected.

This is sheer speculation of course, but I am very troubled by several factors:

* First, the seriousness of the last warning.
* Then, the way it just went *poof* and evaporated after a few days...
* And now, *shazam*, a NEW warning -- with NO mention of the LAST warning.

Like I said, it's very troubling.

And, as I said, sheer speculation -- but, IMO it does all doevetail.

So WHAT doevetails?

The two alerts.

I think that the last alert was the "oh, sh**! -- but hopefull it can be stopped" stage.

I think the current alert is the "oh, sh**! -- we don't think it can be stopped -- and we now do have a better idea of the intended targets."

I think this might be a good time to keep the cars gas tanks topped off, the cupboards filled, and a plan for the frozen food in your freezer in case it starts thawing.

And if it goes full-ugly-mode, those will be the least of our worries. But, at least they're something we can deal with.

We appear to be living in interesting times.

Footnote:

I watched Ridge give his little talk today, and the guy seemed to be worried. Nervous. Scared. NOT "in control" of things.

I don't like that. I don't like that one bit.

I've never had a whole lot of respect for the guy, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But, I do think that one of his main job qualifications was his inate ability to "look strong" and maintain the ol' poker face.

With that in mind, Sunday's "Nervous Tom Ridge" presentation was "a tell." Gone was the old reliable poker face. And it makes ME very nervous when I think about what that signifies.

If you turn on the tube, and see that "the anchors" have all been "sent on assignment" or "on R&R at their ranches", and a bunch of gov't bigwigs are way out in the boonies, "campaigning" or "resting at their ranches" or "in an undisclosed location", then I'd start to sweat.

I'm not much of a believer in "coincidence", and I'll never forget what I read in Christopher Hitchens' "Night of the Weak Knees" column (click my name to read it on my FR homepage).

If a bunch of government and media hotshots all decide to be outta dodge (or "just happen to be on assignment"), then draw your own conclusions. You already know what I'll have concluded.