Warning on the Farm

There is still a small part of me that, no matter how old I am, remains naive. Just call me Boxer the Horse.

I hadn't even thought about this. I guess I just sort of thought everyone would have an equal shot. But the Cunning Realists let's me know just how stupid I can be in these two posts. It looks to me like pretty damning evidence that news of a terrorist threat leaked out and a "certain few" got the opportunity for early warning. Then, TCR asks this:

Cunning Realist

Hypothetical issue to debate: The White House receives a credible warning that a suitcase nuclear device is secreted in a U.S. city and set to detonate within 24 hours. Based on the new story in the Daily News and what we know post-9/11 and post-Katrina about this administration's approach to dealing with a potential or actual catastrophe, do you think "the public" would be warned first---or at all? Remember what really worried Walter Matthau's character in the movie Fail-Safe when it appeared New York was about to be destroyed? Hint: it wasn't the people.

Yeah, I remember what Matthau was worried about (for those of you too young to have seen the movie, his concerns were for financial/corporate records). And it's totally in line with Bush and the neocon vision.

Reading this was a stunning recognition. But really not a surprise. Like the old saying, "good news travels fast" I guess leaking and pre-warning will always occur. But I wouldn't put it past the national government to warn some of ahead of others. After all, 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

Update: Geesh, I barely get this up and Neal Boortz thinks it's a pretty good idea!