The Airing of Grievances
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
What's The Worst Outcome?
1) Tighter security and heightened fear in the face of what, on the surface, looks to be a serious threat?
2) Partisan skepticism as to the timing and legitimacy of said threat?
3) Backlash and more partisan bickering in response to the skepticism as to the timeliness and legitimacy of said imminent threat?
4) Doubt over why a threat was said to be serious, given that most of the information is of a dated nature, followed by a re-exploration of outcomes 2 and 3?
Sure looks like we're getting all four in spades. Honestly, I think the Department of Homeland Security is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, so I'm willing to cut them some slack. But it seems like the only thing they've accomplished (at least in this writer's case), is a sense of utter confusion as to how serious their warnings are, how relevant the admittedly chilling information that they've released is, and just who exactly I can believe. That can't possibly be a good thing, no matter whether the threat is real or not.
Yeah, I'm not exactly the first guy who would go out on a limb and give our current administration the benefit of the doubt, but, honestly, the more I hear, the more of a frustrated skeptic I become. After all, it was only four weeks ago the DHS released what seems now to be a completely purposeless terror alert. In that case, there was no evidence, no reasoning, no follow up, no extra measures taken, only peculiar timing.