>Cheney Denies Terror Threat Was `Hyped for Political Reasons'
Credibility cloud hangs over U.S. terror warnings Wednesday August 4, 4:25 pm ET By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The Bush administration insists its terror warnings should be taken in deadly earnest, but many Americans feel political motives, faulty intelligence and the "cry wolf" factor may be clouding their credibility.
"The security of the United States and potential terror threats are being perceived by some as a tool to garner political support," said Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"The average American doesn't know what to do when they hear these threats, and that's where the frustration and cynicism come from."
Security officials have been scrambling to convince skeptics that the latest terror alert issued on Sunday against five specific financial targets is real, alarming and no election-year ploy -- even if some of the threat information is several years old.
The White House said on Wednesday it received "another new stream of intelligence reporting" on Friday that contributed to the decision to raise the terrorism alert level, brushing aside suggestions it relied solely on the dated information.
"I think when you connect all these streams of intelligence it paints an alarming picture," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
The questions surrounding the latest warning -- the most focused and detailed to date -- highlight persistent credibility issues and frustration among some citizens, local officials and security experts over the administration's handling of terror alerts.
"I would hope they are not playing politics with this announcement," New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a Democrat, told reporters.
"The president and our federal government have a lot of work to do in order to ensure that we all have enough confidence in our intelligence gathering agencies and the way this intelligence is disseminated to the public so that we shouldn't be even having to ask that question," he said.
The Bush administration has vehemently denied any political motives behind the alerts, saying it was doing its duty to protect the country.
HANDLING INFORMATION
Analysts say the skepticism stems from a range of factors including concerns about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence following the failure to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
They say some Americans are also frustrated by a lack of government advice on what they should do to protect themselves in face of the terror threats.
"The great danger is that it blunts the public confidence if you just have a lot of 'cry wolfs' all the time, or worse, you tell people to be more vigilant, but don't really give them any additional steps to take," said Randall Yim, head of the Government Accountability Office's homeland security division.
Many local officials say they are annoyed because they get vital information late if at all.
Newark Mayor Sharpe James, quoted in the New York Times, said he only learned that some of the latest intelligence was old from the news.
Other local officials say they are angry because the threat warnings do not come with federal dollars to fund the heightened security posture.
Embassy officials in Washington said they were never briefed on the latest security threat.
"It seems poorly communicated, or otherwise not very well substantiated," one European diplomat told Reuters. (additional reporting by Adam Entous in Davenport, Iowa)