I don't know about anyone else, but here is how I am taking this...
1. The govt. gets info that something may be afoot, but they don't get the details.
2.They consider whether to issue a warning or keep quiet because they have no meaningful details.
3. They consider the ramifications of saying nothing if something does, in fact, happen.
4.Because they don't want to face the questions--Why didn't you say something?---they decide to issue the warning as best as they can.
All we can do is to take it literally and be on the lookout for any suspicious activity.
God bless us all.
Surely mixer is not still one more lib disruptor.
Thats about it. I for one am glad to hear them issue warnings. Just imagine the backlash if something happened and it was discovered that the government had prior information and said nothing about it.
They may not be giving specific details but at least they are providing the American people with something, even if it is only a vague warning. They are not going to compromise their intelligence sources by saying anymore than is necessary. This is something that we are all going to have to get use to because like it or not it is reality.
They may suspect that something is going down, but they can't decode the messages.