Something still isn't right...

Let's say this new intelligence about Al Qaeda casing the NYSE, the IMF, etc.:

1. Is not something the Pakistanis found weeks or even months ago and sat on until the Dem Convention, but rather is something new that they just found;

2. Is credible information, even though most of it is dated 3+ years ago; and

3. We have no idea when the attack is coming - it could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years.

So, the response to such news is to certainly take the threat seriously and respond appropriately to address the threat. But you don't respond to a long-term threat with a short-term fix-it that you know you can't afford to keep in place very long (can't afford it financially, in terms of manpower, and in terms of the impact the security has on people trying to get into their offices).

A short-term fix-it will have to be lifted in a matter of days or weeks, thus putting the target buildings at the same level of risk they were before the massive security descended on them. And since we had no information to suggest the attack was coming in the next few days or weeks, then why implement measures that are only effective for that period of time? What is Bush planning on doing in 3 weeks, when employees get fed up of the lines going into the Prudential Bldg? Are we going to have men with sub-machine guns permanently deployed in all the cars of the DC Metro? That'd be lovely, and more than a bit coup-ish.

My point isn't to suggest that we don't need heightened security at these buildings. But rather to suggest that Bush's response to the threat is simply bizarre because it's a response that can't be maintained long-term, while the actual threat may be a long-term rather than short-term one. If Bush were serious about all of this, and not playing politics - or simply being stupid - he'd beef up security at those buildings in a way that can be maintained long-term if not permanently, rather than giving us the military equivalent of duct tape.