Isn't this a
little indecent? Gray Davis announces that there's a credible threat
against some California bridges. Then the Justice Department says Davis' information isn't as credible
as the information that led to the Ashcroft announcement earlier in the week.
(Credible? You call that credible? I'll show you credible, buddy!!!)
Can't everyone get on the same team here? Is this like a credibility gap? Do we need a credibility rating system?
The Times gives Davis a bit more of a break, quoting the FBI to the effect that the threat was more 'specific' than the Ashcroft threat, and noting the fact that Davis said he had the information from "several sources, including the F.B.I."
But what does that last line mean exactly? He also got tipped off by the Golden State's own spy agency? What's the deal here?
Just reading over the transcript of Davis' announcement, I see the governor says: "The best preparation is to let the terrorists know: We know what you're up to. We're ready. It's not going to succeed ... We don't want any damage. We don't want any bloodshed. Our goal is to be prepared."
Translation: We're not lookin' for any trouble. We don't wanna have to bust anybody up. We don't wanna have to be kickin' any ass, my terrorist friends. So just chill, okay?
Who's Davis' speechwriter?