It's so disturbing. The federal government says there's a credible threat of terrorism in the next week, but they claim they don't have any information on what the threat is.

Then Davis, California Governor, claims there's a credible threat against one of six bridges in California, including the Bay and Golden Gate bridges.

The Federal government then pops up and says that the California threat isn't as credible as the general threat.

What? If there's a general threat, and then there's some additional information indicating a possible target, how is that less credible? Argh. I just feel (as I'm sure a lot of us do) that we're not being given all the facts. I expect to be left in the dark, but I don't like being misdirected, bending the 'truespeak' to fit anti-terrorist tactics.

More later, I'm sure.