Terror threat fake, and Ikea

Ok, second post of the night.

Does anyone else think this whole the-terror-threat-was-actually-primarily-based-on-info-more-than-three-years-old thing should be like the biggest scandal ever?? Are we really so numb to this kind of joke?

To Howard Kurtz, for example, the revelation was simply "amunition" for "those who question whether the orange alert was hyped".

The Times and the Post are both rolling out big appologies to the administration on Wednesday:

In the Times, we have "New Qaeda Activity Is Said to Be Major Factor in Alert". The story, relying on annonymous sources, is a stunning contradiction of Tuesday's "Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say". Which way is it, Doug?! You just have to picture the guy sitting at his phone, being spoon-fed garbage by the damage control folks, and then printing it. And dare I even ask what ever happened to the Times' new policy on annonymous sourcing?

In the Post's front-page analysis, Glenn Kessler tidies up the situation:
"The White House's failure to make it clear that the dramatic terrorism alert Sunday was based largely on information that predated the Sept. 11 attacks is a case study in the difficulty of managing such warnings for an administration whose credibility is a central issue in a difficult presidential campaign."

In other words, the threat hype wasn't something the administration cooked up, but rather something that was inflicted upon them, part of a "difficulty" in conveying the threat. Poor things.

*

In other news, the Ikea in New Haven is now open. Have you seen the food??? It looks amazing.