The current line from the pro-Bush camp seems to be that columnists and commentators who are criticizing the President’s entourage for the deluge of warnings about terrorism over the past week are just trying to set him up so that they can slam him when the next terrorist attack occurs. Maybe that is the motive of some of the President’s critics, but I think it’s reasonable to reject warnings that are made simply for the purpose of providing some sort of plausible political cover.
For example, the FBI director’s warnings were made not to give us information we can use to protect ourselves, but rather so that we can brace ourselves for what he knows is coming. Is that really necessary? I think we all realized that America is vulnerable to terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, if we didn’t know it already. Now that everyone from the Vice President on down has told us that we’re going to be attacked again, they can relax and say “It’s not like we didn’t warn you” the next time something awful happens. Is that really going to gain them anything?