There is an major Presidential election in less than a week.

[stickdog]

Sorry, but I don't have time a pissing contest and personality battle about VREELAND of all people.

His claims are inherently less than fully credible, no matter who they were disseminated to or how they were disseminated. We all agree on that.

But what is the point of a personal opinion battle over whether or not these warnings require further action? Personally, I think terrorist warnings of this type ought to be treated like the Secret Service treats warning on the President's life -- no matter who issues them. But if you disagree, that's your right. Like 98% of the people on DU, I'm here to share my beliefs, not to force them on an unwilling audience. If you don't like wearing a seat belt, that's up to you as well. If you think Ridge's and Ashcroft's warnings are more credible than even the barest of rumors associated with Vreeland, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But please, don't fell free to assassinate my character (and that of other DUers who agree with me) because of a difference in opinion about what level of circumspection we should apply to these warnings. That would be beneath us.