Boortz is echoing the sentiment that these alerts are reaching the 'cry wolf' syndrome. Boortz thinks Dean's allegation has merit, since the reports that the alerts were based on 'old data.'
Sometimes Boortz is out to lunch. This is one of them.
Also, he seems to be getting his information exclusively from the New York Times. He, of all people, should know better. Even the WashPost was concerned and realistic about the threat.
I guess these guys didn't read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," because, at some point, the wolf shows up.
I think Boortz needs to take his meds.
The laptop computer was seized on July 25 following the arrest after a 12-hour gun battle of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who is wanted for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
~~~~~~~~~~~
And the NY Times SWIIIIIIINGS ... AND MISSES!!!
Boortz is wrong. Need I remind you that back in 1996 the Clinton administration had unspecific information on an al Qaeda plot to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings?
Did that 'years old' information turn out to be a false alarm?
Dean and the rest of the Dems are politicizing this, just as they did within hours of the 9/11 attacks : "What did Bush know and when did he know it?"
This threat is considered credible and has been confirmed by British intelligence sources.
Boortz can go to hell. If we can't have a terror alert with this kind of specific information; the arrests, the data from the laptop, etc - then the whole homeland security system of alerts should be eliminated. What good is it, if the only time you can be "allowed" to use it by the liberal media - is when the attack has already occurred.