• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sky is falling

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.
 
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.

I think that stament in general applies to "being in charge."
 
Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem with such warnings is that those who issue the warnings are in a "lose-lose" situation
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.

I am not sure of the solution but perhaps some unpartisan (CIA?) or bipartisan group could be involved. Ashcroft announcing stuff to the media does not give me a belief of accuracy.

CBL
 

Back
Top Bottom