Whoracle said:You suck at the internet.
Skeptic said:The problem with such warnings is that those who issue the warnings are in a "lose-lose" situation. If you issue a warning and there's no attack, you are called hysterical. But if you don't issue a warning and there is an attack, you are blamed for not having done enough to prevent it.
This is a good point but the Bush administration has shown itself to have tendency to use anything for political purposes. They are not alone in this, of course, but if they want warnings to be used for warning purposes, they need to somehow persuade people that the warning are not political. The timing of the most recent alert using three year info does not seem credible.Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem with such warnings is that those who issue the warnings are in a "lose-lose" situation
The point, beyond that at the top of your head?